Note: I will be writing a series of articles about the cause of gravity in my facebook timeline, to satisfy my loyal school friends who seem interested. This is the first of such articles. I will also be posting them to sci.physics.

The cause of gravity – 1

Brief:

The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be, as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant found by experiment. Recently the author
has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional to m and M, this is essentially the same formula with the difference
that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a manifestation of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference between electrostatic force and gravitational force.

As such, there should be, among reasonable people, no quarrel with the new electrostatic representation of gravity, as on the surface it is a re-statement of the earlier statement. The curious may well be satisfied that an electrostatic representation of
gravity may somehow explain what is so far unexplained and not understood about the manifestations of Nature: such as capillary action in plants and narrow tubes where fluid rises up defying gravity and the law of conservation of energy; and how charged
winds streaming from the Sun can be formed despite the Sun’s huge gravity.

But, as presented – so far - without supporting logic as to its derivation, the new formula seems to be a trivial form of the existing formula, imparting no new knowledge. It may also seem preposterous as uncharged masses, by definition, do not emit
any measurable electric field. Finally, the electrostatic forces are estimated to be as per physics literature to be some 10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force. For all these reasons, the gravitational force has been held to be something
entirely independent, yet similar to the electrostatic force.

It is my purpose, in the following articles, to show that despite the above sound objections arising from the existing scientific viewpoints, indeed the gravitational force is a manifestation of electrostatic force.

Instead of the just the physics community, I will make my appeal primarily to the intelligent lay public, who are innocent of whatever passes for modern physics. For that purpose, prior to making my new points, I will try to impart a crash course in the
fundamentals of electrostatics, as simply as possible. Furthermore, I will as my target audience have my old school friends, whose loyalty and faith in my abilities I most deeply cherish. My sole request to them – and all my other friends in Facebook
and beyond in the online world - is to tell me, as bluntly as possible, exactly what they do not understand about what I will be writing, in further instalments on my Facebook timeline. (I will post my writings in the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics as well)
.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee, 21/4/2020

The cause of gravity – 2

Historical background:

Sir Isaac Newton, in his great work known as the “Principia”, primarily stressed upon two factors; the role of geometry in modelling reality, and the use of mathematics to make correct and accurate predictions in idealised environments, like say a
body in free space surrounded by nothing. Let us have this in mind when we discuss how he managed to discover gravity, from the general level of the scientific thinking in his time
.
The scientific thinking of his time was Aristotleian. For many hundreds of years, it was believed that the Sun went around the Earth – exactly as we can all see for ourselves. The stars were the openings to Heaven, sending down heavenly light. They
moved in crystal spheres that too revolved around the fixed Earth. The Christian Church devoutly followed the Aristotleian model, for it was perfectly, obviously, correct with the stars being proof of Heaven and the need to be religious and dutiful to
get there, via the Church of course. Let us not forget, no one had a clue about gravity, or even force as a scientific measurement construct, for that matter.

So the ancients did their science in their own way, basically through empirical methods as they lacked the theory and the resulting mathematical modeling. To the extent they were practical, following geometry, they got good results. As an example, let us
see how the Greeks calculated the distance to the Moon. They used parallax. This means that when one points to an object at one point, there is a certain angle with respect to a common plane. From another point on the same plane, there is a different
angle. To experiment (P.S. try this), point at anything a bit distant with a finger or scale with just one eye. Then shut it and open the other eye. The object will have “moved” but it is just the parallax effect. You will have to shift the finger or
the scale to the original object to find the angle of parallax. From the distance between your eyes, and the angle, the distance to the object can be found.

Hipparchus of Nicaea (190-120 BC) used the parallax method to get the distance to the Moon with reasonable accuracy. The ancients may not have known about force and gravity the way we do, but they did know about parallax, geometry - and Hipparachus
himself is also credited with inventing trigonometry! Incidentally, the parallax method is still used to this day to find the distance of stars and galaxies from our planet.

Thus Isaac Newton was heir to the great Greek scientific traditions. He had been further influenced by Copernicus and Galileo. About these two, now: let us also get in touch with dates, we are doing some history after all!

Copernicus (1473-1543) is credited with discovering (in the West that is) the heliocentric system, that is, the Sun is fixed and the planets revolve around it. He did it without a telescope, just his naked eye with some pointing tools. And that was
enough. What he found was that the angular positions of heavenly bodies (stars, planets) changed the most every six months, constantly. The same old parallax system is at work, this time instead of the space between two eyes from our earlier example,
twice the distance of the Earth from the Sun! Copernicus concluded that the dominant and hallowed geometric system (Sun and planets and stars going around the Earth each in its own crystal sphere) was wrong. The explanation, to account for this anomaly,
was that the Earth was revolving around the Sun. It was a perilous explanation, for it went against the doctrines of the Church. Galileo (1564-1642) was persecuted in 1633 for supporting Copernicus, by the famous Church Inquisition where he was forced to
recant, and say that Copernicus was wrong and Aristotle was right. He was more fortunate than Giordano Bruno, the talented Dominican friar who was burned at the stake on 17 Feb 1600 for upholding the Copernican heliocentric view, and further stating that
the universe was infinite and that other solar systems also existed.

Back to Isaac Newton (1642 – 1737). It should be obvious from the mood of his time (as presented above) that the geocentric model was absolutely dominant – all the churches expounded it, the universities taught it, all rich and important people
believed it utterly. Exactly as they believe in special and general relativity, quantum theory, big bang, expanding universe, black holes, quarks, bosons, string theories, neutrinos, photons, fusion, e=mcc, spacetime, nothing can go faster than light,
etc. etc. etc. these days, following Einstein, Feynman and Hawking. Newton was evidently too smart to fall for the geocentric model – but how could that make him popular with the powers that were in his time? Newton had a miserable time as a student,
and did his best work when he was on his own, away from the mediocre professors professing the Aristotleian geocentric model. But, he did not have anything really substantial to smash the geocentric model. The angular differences in the positions of the
heavenly bodies could be dismissed with airy hand-waving, along with some spurious explanation like wobble in the crystal spheres, as a devil’s prank to confuse the faithful.

It is said that in 1666 (that is, when Newton was 24 and Galileo had been forced to recant his views only 33 years ago) that the famous apple fell on Newton’s head, or on the ground before him. Why did it fall to the ground? A simple question, but no
one had asked it before. Why was it moving faster and faster (accelerating) as it fell? Newton thought that there had to be an attractive force between the mass of the Earth and the apple, which caused it to fall. It was moving faster and faster because
till it fell, the force was working constantly upon it, causing acceleration. Newton then theorised that all bodies with mass are attracted to each other. The apple falls to the Earth, but the Earth is also influenced – the Earth also moves towards the
apple, but as the Earth is too big, and there are many other falls all over, the Earth’s movement is not discernible.

Newton theorized that the attractive force was proportional to the multiplicative product of the two masses attracting each other, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. This directly leads to the present formula, F=GmM/
r^2. However let us not forget that the gravitational constant G was not known until Cavendish measured it in 1797-98, some 131 years after Newton had his famous insight, which had so far eluded everyone else.

If masses did attract one another, just as the Earth attracts the falling apple, then why does not the Earth fall into the Sun, like the apple falling to the ground? Either gravity operated only on Earth (thus the Earth and the Sun did not attract each
other) or the sun being very small (like say Apollo’s chariot) revolved around the Earth; or - and this was supported by astronomical findings supporting Copernican model of the rotating Earth revolving around the Sun - the Earth actually moved around
the Sun.

It was obvious that the Sun was far bigger than the Earth, from the phenomena of eclipses and the knowledge of the Moon’s dimensions. It is still not known 100% that gravitation works for heavenly system, the way it does for the apple-Earth system,
thus the universal theory of gravitation remains a theory, although one of the most powerful theories known, like the atomic theory. It is still a theory, for it cannot explain why ionised masses escape from the Sun’s extraordinary gravitational pull.

The Earth then has to move tangentially, always, for ever, to escape falling into the Sun. It certainly would do so if a giant hand stopped its motion! What Newton with his geometry and maths explained, clearly, was that the Earth is in fact always “
falling into” the Sun, but because of its tangential velocity, “falling out” by more or less the same amount. (The” more or less” accounts for the elliptic orbit, that is, not purely circular, as Kepler (1571-1639) had worked out before Newton.)

The earlier point is worth pondering about, for a few minutes. It explains the motion of all satellites. The tangential motion allows the satellites to not fall back to the Earth, and keep constantly revolving unless the tangential speed is reduced by
drag of some kind, including rocketry.

Another point about gravity – the gravitational force simply depends upon the existence of mass. It never changes for that mass. It is constant, always there. This mass always attracts, thus its force never changes, it is exerted all around in all
angles. Always, always…. Such is the fundamental design of the Universe. Can we probe a bit deeper into its cause, now? I think some more groundwork is necessary.
22/04/2020

The cause of gravity – 3

The conception of force

Force is the central issue in physics – or at least, it should be the central issue in physics. It is from force that all things move, or stay put. Force moved over distance is work, and work has the same units as energy. Energy, then, is expended when
a force moves over a distance. There is a vast difference between force and energy – as I see it, force is for the physicists to better understand the workings of the Universe; and energy is for the businessmen to make money. So it is, that as far as
possible, to understand the fundamentals of Nature, I avoid the use of the energy concept.

The difference between force and energy is tricky. It is easy to confuse one for the other, and most people untrained in physics may do so. Force must have direction – it is thus called a vector. Because forces have direction, two separate forces
operating in the same direction add up to one double-force. In opposite directions, they cancel out to zero. But energy has no direction. It is thus called a scalar quantity. Energy is usually defined as the capacity of a body to do work. It is further
postulated that energy is always conserved. Its form however changes: when we drop a ball to the ground, the potential energy of the ball at the start changes to the maximum kinetic energy just near the point of impact. After this, though, the thinking
is not that clear. After impact, the kinetic energy is converted to heat energy. Instead of saying that this energy is lost, we say, as per classical physics, that the entropy, a mathematical concept about the state of disorder in the universe, has
increased. I have never been happy with this explanation – it seems to me pretty self-evident that energy is continuously getting created by the Sun and Earth, being used for various purposes, before being radiated out for destruction into deep space.
Thus, energy is pretty slippery. It is always getting used up. We need money to use energy, if we cannot make use of the natural sources like the Sun and wind and water and geothermal.

Is force equally slippery?

As far as I can see, Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), in his Notes, made the first-ever proper description of force with the following statements:

“Force I define as a spiritual power, incorporeal and invisible, which with brief life is produced in those bodies which as the result of accidental violence are brought out of their natural state and condition. I have said spiritual because in this
force there is an active, incorporeal life; and I call it invisible because the body in which it is created does not increase in weight or in size; and of brief duration because it desires perpetually to subdue its cause, and when this is subdued it
kills itself.”

Such a definition of force is slippery indeed! From da Vinci’s definition, secularized, force is the “result of accidental violence” brought out “natural state and condition”. Thus it is random and violent. It is “brief in duration”,
meaning it is transient, certainly nothing permanent. A perpetual desire to “subdue its cause” means that it is revolutionary. When successful in that “it kills itself” so is suicidal. This appears as quite a statement of the violent political
mood of his times, based upon sneaky opportunisms, as elaborated upon by his contemporary Machiavelli (1469-1527)!

It will not be difficult to see how much da Vinci’s conception of force - which in his day had to be purely mechanical - influencing later scientists like Galileo, led to the formulation of the well-known Newtonian laws of motion. The phrase “natural
state and condition” is known as inertia, formulated in the first law of motion. “Result of accidental violence” refers to acceleration, and is formulated in the second law of motion. The statement “when this is subdued it kills itself”, refers
to the third law of motion which states that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

From the above discussion we find that the conception of mechanical force is not just slippery; it is random, violent, transient and suicidal. Nothing constant about force! And yet, with such conception of force, formed from the greatest minds in the
West, all the wonderful works in engineering have been done, from locomotives to jet engine airplanes; from muskets to missiles; small cars to huge ships! As force is slippery, so energy too is slippery. Energy mutates from one form to another. Just like
force, its magnitude depends upon the frame of reference with respect to any observer. Thus two jet airplanes flying side by side may gently nudge each other, with minimal force or expenditure of energy involved. But if they collide, meaning the
reference frames are opposite now, the forces involved and the energy spent in the disaster is enormous.

The above conception of force, so widely accepted because it was correct, makes Isaac Newton’s discovery of gravity all the more remarkable. For gravity is not slippery, nor random, nor violent, transient and suicidal. It is the very opposite. It is
constant, spreading out in all directions, relatively very gentle, and permanent. Being all that, it is gravity which holds us all together on this planet; and it is gravity that makes the entire universe a permanent moving system composed of unlimited
quantities of matter. Gravity, thus, is an entirely different kind of force. As we shall see, it is a much muted form of electrostatic force. Till now, despite their basic similarity, gravity and electrostatic forces are held to be independent: one is
not the manifestation of the other.

A few more points: the random nature of mechanical force had led Leonardo da Vinci to conclude that a device that would perennially give out energy (a perpetual motion machine) was impossible. Even when gravity was discovered as a constant force, this
was found to be true. This inability to construct a perpetual motion machine was a factor in the definition of the law of conservation of energy, that energy could neither be created nor destroyed. Certainly this law is much appreciated by the fossil
fuel industries!

Researching Leonardo da Vinci’s comment on the nature of force, this time with a more modern mindset, we note the words “I have said spiritual because in this force there is an active, incorporeal life”. Now concentrate on the words “in this
force” and “life”. Da Vinci is not talking of force as an expression of the inanimate – for him all forces relate to life and spring from some unknown higher purpose, thus blurring the line between physics and metaphysics.

“Life force” thus is essentially internal. It comes from within, but is related to without. Going by da Vinci’s perception, it is inherently random and self-destructing. But what if it can be made to act otherwise, with the purpose of steady
movement in one direction? What if instead of being pushed around by external forces, bodies can push themselves with internal “life force”? We all know that this is a dream monetized by science fiction. Can this fiction become fact? Can we overcome
the effects of gravity with internal force?

For over twenty years, I have wrestled with the above issues. My work has been presented online. In 2000 I published in my “adda” website my book “To the Stars!”. It attracted minimal interest, till in 2003 an article by myself was published in
the Science Section of Outlook Magazine, in India. I got fiercely hostile reactions to my article, which surprised me before I got disgusted with the low quality of scientific temper, from low personal attacks. For example, one Garg, a junior scientist
in the employ of the Govt. of India, offered gratuitous abuse.

The link for that article is at https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/newt-is-old-hat/220728

I now believe, that the editors thought that I was attacking Newton with my new ideas, and that was the reason for its publication!

Arindam Banerjee
25 April 2020

The cause of gravity – 4

Measuring fundamental constants (G) and the meaning of research

(start rant)

Today the entire field of physics is thoroughly institutionalised, with standardised thinking dedicated to perpetuating the established orthodoxies, like any religion. These high priests – in the field of what is called “modern physics” involving
the theories of relativity, publish their weird notions, with amazing smoke screens of mathematical gibberish to confuse the most intelligent lay persons, in select journals and conferences, to maintain their high prestige. Their efforts are very
expensively funded by the Governments and various rich parties, blindly supporting the high priests ensconced in universities and Govt. laboratories. Amateurs or hobbyists have no place in this closed system. The best they can do is to publish their work
online; in social media, email, etc. unless they spend thousands of dollars for publication in some vague journal which will be automatically derided by the establishment because of its low ratings. In this system success is measured in terms of the
money squeezed out from the higher powers for some “output”. Like gravity waves, quarks, red shift, big bang, string theory, black holes, bosons, neutrinos… you name it, there will always be more coming!

So much is this notion prevalent, that only the expenditure of millions or billions of dollars involving vast projects such as making black holes, or fusion energy, is considered solely necessary to finding something new and wonderful – which, however
hardly ever happens. Anything revolutionary in physics, involving low budgets and lone endeavour is automatically discarded as cranky or plain wrong if it goes against the grain of the orthodoxies.

(end rant)

The greatest advances in physics did not require huge investments in money and manpower. What was needed was insight, dedication, patience, skill, tenacity… of the talented amateur, working with minimal help. Sir Isaac Newton is the best known example,
as the discoverer of the force of gravity. But his discovery in 1666 was far from complete. He could only indicate that the gravitational force between two masses was proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square
of the distance between their centres of gravity. Newton did not know what the proportionality constant was. We now know it as the gravitational constant G.

It was only in 1798 (that is 135 years after Newton’s discovery) that the Gravitational Constant was found from measurement, by Henry Cavendish. The experiment was painstakingly done by Cavendish, but the apparatus itself was simple. A recent attempt
to recreate a model of the original apparatus is shown in the Youtube video film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lCjq4IzJw

Cavendish’s experiment was conducted in a large sealed room, to prevent air currents. Two lead balls, spaced widely apart were joined by a thin light rod. A fine string suspended these two balls from their centre of mass, from the ceiling. Two heavy
lead balls were placed near the suspended balls, such that they could each attract the suspended ball in the same direction so as to produce the maximum twisting effect (torque) upon the string. How much the string would twist, could be found out by the
angular displacement of a very light long strip connected to the twisting string. The movement of the edge of this strip could be tracked from its initial position to find the angular displacement.

So much (from above) I have got from the literature, and the rest is my own construction, relating to the necessary calibration and measurement. The gravitational force is very small. And yet, it can be measured correctly with proper application. The
main issue is calibration, for any measurement.

What we have to know is how much the thread twists for a certain torque (twisting action). Let us say that the length of the suspended rod with its attached balls is ten meters. Torque is equal to the force F multiplied by the distance r to the point of
twist. Or T=F*r. With equal force from the other end it is T=F*r + F*r = 2Fr or F.d. The torque motion will be resisted by the material in the string – it cannot twist indefinitely - after a certain angle (depending upon the quality) the string will no
longer twist as a result of the torque. Thus T= k.theta, where theta is the angle of twist and k is a constant depending upon the quality of the string. F.d=k.theta then; now we need to find k.

The issue of calibration now comes in. Let us see how it can be done. From about 10 cm from the centre of the suspending string, tie a fine thread to the rod on both sides. Slide it over a pulley to a suspended mass of say 1 gram, on both sides. A
continuous torque now acts on the suspended string. It will twist by a certain angle, then stop twisting. Measure that angle. Now make more experiments with increasing or decreasing weights, and changing the distances involved, to get many values of
theta, and from F, d and theta, so many values of k which should all be more or less the same for a given torque applied with various values of F and d. Numerous experiments average out the experimental error, statistically, to get k.

The rest of the experiment is simple. Just get the very heavy balls of lead near to the suspended balls, at right angles and as near as possible without touching. The small balls will be attracted by this extra mass near them, and the torque will be
created till the suspended string twists by an angle theta. Knowing k and theta, the torque T is known. Knowing the torque T and the distance d, the gravitational force F between the suspended ball of mass m and the heavy ball of mass M is known. Various
values of F can be found with increasing or decreasing the static balls; that is fro. Now at the end position, the distance between the centres of gravity of the suspended ball of mass m and the heavy ball M is found. This is r. So now we have all that
is needed to find the gravitational constant G from the formula
G = F*r*r/(m*M)

With this formula, Cavendish could work out the mass of the Earth, knowing g, the acceleration due to gravity. Every apple of mass m falls to the Earth with mass M, by the law of universal gravitation (it is assumed now that as per Newton not just lead
balls in an experiment are attracted with the constant G, but all bodies in the universe) it falls with a force F which by Newton’s second law is equal to m.g

The above equation can be written as M=F*r*r/(G.m) With F=mg, it is M=r*r*g/G

For the fun of it, let us put in the values to get the mass of the Earth! r is the Earth’s radius which is 6371 Km or 6371000 m. g on the surface is 9.8 m/sec/sec. G is found to be 6.674*10^-11 in MKS units. The calculator result is that the mass of
the Earth is 5.96 *10^24 Kg. How nice! Knowing the mass of the Earth we can also find the mass of the Sun, Moon and so on. In the practical sense, we can know how much force is exerted by the Earth on distant objects like satellites or space vehicles.

**** NEW ****

So far we have been dealing with the known. Research to most means looking things up, but as a professional researcher I do not call that research; I call that search. Research (re-search or search again and again and again…) means looking at an
established search in a new way each time, with a slightly different angle, with the knowledge of relevant new knowledge and finally with special insight (from the Divine, in my case and with all my heroes in science: Plato, da Vinci, Newton, Maxwell,
Tesla, my great-uncle Sir U N Brahmachari) for its own sake, or for some practical purpose.

Applying that notion of research to the notion of the gravitational constant G, what do we find?

**** INSIGHT ****

We find that none of the masses involved in the experiment were charged with electricity.

*****************

Which amounts to, the law of universal gravitation may or may not apply to charged masses. This explains why ions stream out of the Sun, despite the Sun’s huge gravitational force. However up till now, we had assumed that charged masses were subject to
gravitational forces, so the ion streaming from the Sun is a mystery.

But what is charge? Sir Isaac Newton had no idea about charge, no clue about electricity. Cavendish may have had some idea, for his apparatus was a large torsion balance, used to measure electrostatic forces. We will go into the details of electrostatics
in the next instalment. That will be the prelude to expressing the equation of universal gravitation in electrostatic terms.

Arindam Banerjee
29 April 2020

Further comments in my facebook post: 29 April 2020

understand this, that the Gravitational Constant was measured only with masses with no charge in them. Both were uncharged. This is a small but vital point. It shows that assuming that the law of universal gravitation is valid for charged masses is an
assumption. It is the job of the researcher, that is, one who searches old stuff with new eyes, to point this out. And that is what I have done. And will be doing, in later instalments.

With the measurement of the slightest twist of a string, one may thus weigh the Earth, Sun, Moon and the planets! Direct the course of spaceships! Such is the power of the correct theory. Or rather, the more correct theory. Science is always provisional,
that is, in for change.

Thus I wonder, how much mad those around the likes of da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, Cavendish, Franklin, Faraday thought them to be! They would not have had the faintest clue of what was going on. They would stoutly believe in established notions expounded
from some pulpit or altar. Things have not changed, have they!?

The cause of gravity – 5

The fundamentals of electrostatic attraction leading to the structure of the atom

To recapitulate the thesis: “The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be, as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant found by
experiment. Recently the author has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional to m and M, this is essentially the same
formula with the difference that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a manifestation of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference between electrostatic
force and gravitational force.”

We have dealt with the development of gravitational force at some length, in the earlier instalments. To validate the thesis that there is no difference between electrostatic force and gravitational force, let us see how the electrostatic force was
developed to the point where it could be seen as being deeply involved in the basic elements of matter, that is, atoms.

From the second volume of the revered Halliday and Resnick, we learn that Thales of Miletus, in 600 BC, knew that a rubbed piece of amber will attract bits of straw. This results from electrostatic forces. Prior to this, it was known that certain
naturally occurring “stones” (magnetite) will attract iron. This is magnetism. These two sciences developed quite separately until 1820, when Hans Christian Oersted (1777-1851) observed that an electric current in a wire can affect a magnetic compass
needle. This discovery led to the entire new science of electromagnetism.

[continued in next message]

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

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex. Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles? I think mass is a good approximation of that
even if it isn't accurate, no?

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

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

Regards

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

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and swallows
up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

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

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and swallows

up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed. Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me. Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the
escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

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

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and

swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along
the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine
just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due to
potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and

swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along

the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from? Since the charged particles are also accelerating, one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine

just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due to

potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and

swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all

along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine

just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due to

potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and

swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all

along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time. Where does the magnetism go? I think the charge
which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the

heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due to

potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and

swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all

along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.
In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much used in
permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.
This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective save for
certain situations.
They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not disappear. This is
a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the

heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due

to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there

and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed,

all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much used in

permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can see that the
iron sprinkles are doing work. If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief. By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption
that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective save for

certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not disappear. This is

a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the

heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due

to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there

and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed,

all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much used in

permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can see that the

iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and copper get
replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.
Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get
destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective save for

certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not disappear. This

is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the

heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field

due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets

there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed,

all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much used in

permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can see that

the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and copper get

replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably located with GPS.
Can you please explain how the scooter works?

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get destroyed

in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective save

for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not disappear.

This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches

the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field

due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets

there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain

speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much used in

permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can see that

the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and copper get

replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably located with

GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque, give that
to a generator, which would produce electricity.
The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get

destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective save

for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not disappear.

This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches

the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric

field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets

there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain

speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much used

in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can see

that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and copper get

replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably located with

GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque, give

that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get

destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective

save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not disappear.

This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations, that can be
applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are more used to
applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He

reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric

field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars

gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain

speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much

used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can see

that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and copper

get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably located

with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque, give

that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get

destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective

save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations, that can

be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are more used to
applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is reasonably
constant.

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He

reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric

field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars

gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a

certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much

used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can

see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and copper

get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably located

with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque, give

that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get

destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective

save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations, that can

be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are more used to
applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH? To answer myself, perhaps the galaxies
that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the physicists, on a macro scale, are twisting
physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is reasonably

constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum, is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive? In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are still
very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He

reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the

electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of

stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a

certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much

used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can

see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and

copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably located

with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque,

give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get

destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations, that

can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are more
used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH? To answer myself, perhaps the

galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the physicists, on a macro scale, are
twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum,

It is not a zero sum for background noise, which is what I said.

is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive?

No, as the force is positive, the local energy level is always there and in fact is the basis for nanotechnology.

In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

It is not just intuition. Intuition was there mainly back in 1999, also backed by theory and math.
Now over the decades it is backed by practical revolutionary maths and theory, in the area of rail gun motors, totally proved by easily repeatable experiments which will be converted into new motors. The new theories provide a realistic perception about
the way the universe works.

That the physicists of our time ignore my work is most unfortunate. No point dwelling on it, for the sake of good health.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He

reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the

electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of

stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a

certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much

used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We can

see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and

copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably located

with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque,

give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which get

destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations, that

can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are more
used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH?

There are no black holes. Light speed varies all the time, no big deal.

To answer myself, perhaps the galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the

physicists, on a macro scale, are twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

The universe is not expanding. It is infinite. It has no beginning nor end. It is eternal.

Einstein's theories are totally wrong. Had they been correct the distant galaxies would have been going away at very great speed. The boundary of the universe would have been found. Such has not happened. As many galaxies are coming towards us as going
away.


The laws of physics are incomplete and must be updated. You had earlier said that you had followed my experimental work and found it satisfactory. All other so-called physicists ignore my experimental work which by violating inertia upsets not just
modern physics nut conventional physics as well.

May I ask just one question now? Are you a liar like the rest of them?

Sorry to offend you, but if you do support lies you have to face the charge of being a liar. It is either me, or the rest. Take your choice. There is no compromise between lie and truth. Either I violate inertia with my experiment, or I do not.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum, is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive? In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are still

very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He

reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the

electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

Click here - https://medsshoppharma.com/mounjaro-weight-loss/

If you are not eligible for Mounjaro, there are other effective medications you can discuss with your doctor. Wegovy has been shown to reduce weight by 15% in clinical trials and is FDA-approved for weight loss for people with a BMI of 30 or with a BMI
of 27 or higher and one weight related medical condition. If you meet these criteria, insurance companies are much more likely to cover the cost for Wegovy than Mounjar

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

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:46:12 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of

stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a

certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so

much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We

can see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and

copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably

located with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque,

give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which

get destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations, that

can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are more
used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH? To answer myself, perhaps the

galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the physicists, on a macro scale, are
twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum,

It is not a zero sum for background noise, which is what I said.

My comment was about the commonly observed forces that can be zero sum. I remember you mentioning an experiment where a submerged object, at a great depth of an ocean, would not break up if the forces from all sides are balanced with the forces from
within. I interpreted it as zero sum (may be the misunderstanding is mine). As per your statements, energy is proportional to the square of force. I can't derive by myself because you are talking about radiation. A long time ago in college physics I
read about radiation pressure. I believe Einstein is the one who studied it and had written papers on it. Are you accepting his theory on radiation pressure?

is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive?

No, as the force is positive, the local energy level is always there and in fact is the basis for nanotechnology.

In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

It is not just intuition. Intuition was there mainly back in 1999, also backed by theory and math.
Now over the decades it is backed by practical revolutionary maths and theory, in the area of rail gun motors, totally proved by easily repeatable experiments which will be converted into new motors. The new theories provide a realistic perception

about the way the universe works.

That the physicists of our time ignore my work is most unfortunate. No point dwelling on it, for the sake of good health.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire.

He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the

electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:26:01 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of

stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a

certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so

much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We

can see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and

copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably

located with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque,

give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which

get destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations, that

can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are more
used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH?

There are no black holes. Light speed varies all the time, no big deal.

To answer myself, perhaps the galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the

physicists, on a macro scale, are twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

The universe is not expanding. It is infinite. It has no beginning nor end. It is eternal.

Einstein's theories are totally wrong. Had they been correct the distant galaxies would have been going away at very great speed. The boundary of the universe would have been found. Such has not happened. As many galaxies are coming towards us as going

away.


Arindam:

The laws of physics are incomplete and must be updated. You had earlier said that you had followed my experimental work and found it satisfactory. All other so-called physicists ignore my experimental work which by violating inertia upsets not just

modern physics nut conventional physics as well.

Yes, I have gone through your experiments and they are extremely convincing. Sorry for not qualifying my description and lumping you with others. I meant to say in a "large scale" experiment. In Labs, IMHO, anything can be proved in physics of
astronomical bodies. One can even say ancient hindus like Arya Bhata had tremendous intuitions about the universe. But they never invented a telescope and tried to observe or experiment with astronomical bodies. If Lord Krishna said in Gita "I am the sun
among the stars" we had better believe to be good hindus. No hindu questions back at the authority (partly because of the fear that when you question authority, the authority will question you). I remember reading some scripture that said "The sun and
planets revolve/rotate around for the fear of Brahman." At the surface it is innocuous. Such seemingly simple declaration is hard to prove in science without accepting the Big Bang and the theories that ensued from it. This could all change if scientists
can actually create a big bang in the lab on a smaller scale.

May I ask just one question now? Are you a liar like the rest of them?

I was a bad hindu. I am trying to claw back my way to be a good one.

Thanks for entertaining my questions. Please comment.

Sorry to offend you, but if you do support lies you have to face the charge of being a liar. It is either me, or the rest. Take your choice. There is no compromise between lie and truth. Either I violate inertia with my experiment, or I do not.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum, is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive? In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are

still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire.

He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the

electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 10:04:25 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:46:12 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of

stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a

certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so

much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We

can see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and

copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably

located with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque,

give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which

get destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations,

that can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are
more used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH? To answer myself, perhaps the

galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the physicists, on a macro scale, are
twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum,

It is not a zero sum for background noise, which is what I said.

My comment was about the commonly observed forces that can be zero sum. I remember you mentioning an experiment where a submerged object, at a great depth of an ocean, would not break up if the forces from all sides are balanced with the forces from

within.

Yes, at the centre of the Earth there is no net force, as matter pulls symmetrically from all sides. so no pressure, so no temperature, so superconducting currents are possible leading to the magentic field we know. Not just for Earth, but the sun and
dark stars.

Yes, we are not crushed by air pressure as it acts equally on all sides.
But at any given point is space the electric fields evidently do not add up to zero for there is noise as its square, and that shows it has to be nonzero. In my electronics lab I asked why the oscillator oscillates with positive feedback. The answer is
cosmic radiation. The little energy from the flat spectrum will multiply to give us oscillation.

Now the universe is moving, so its symmetry is always changing. So the net field from all the stars will not be zero, the fields cannot add up to zero, but a small finite.

I interpreted it as zero sum (may be the misunderstanding is mine). As per your statements, energy is proportional to the square of force. I can't derive by myself because you are talking about radiation. A long time ago in college physics I read

about radiation pressure. I believe Einstein is the one who studied it and had written papers on it. Are you accepting his theory on radiation pressure?

Einstein bungled as usual.

Radiation which is a wave and not momentum of any kind creates current on one side, the sun facing side,of a space sail, heating one side and thus causing a heat flow within the sail which transforms to motion. Meaning acceleration, force, pressure is
created. Nothing to do with quantum mechanics, just internal motion from conducting heat, pushing against the far side.

is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive?

No, as the force is positive, the local energy level is always there and in fact is the basis for nanotechnology.

In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

It is not just intuition. Intuition was there mainly back in 1999, also backed by theory and math.
Now over the decades it is backed by practical revolutionary maths and theory, in the area of rail gun motors, totally proved by easily repeatable experiments which will be converted into new motors. The new theories provide a realistic perception

about the way the universe works.

That the physicists of our time ignore my work is most unfortunate. No point dwelling on it, for the sake of good health.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating, They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.
one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire.

He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the

electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 15:28:20 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:26:01 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of

stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a

certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so

much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic. We

can see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel and

copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably

located with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a torque,

give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy. Which

get destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not

disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations,

that can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are
more used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH?

There are no black holes. Light speed varies all the time, no big deal.

To answer myself, perhaps the galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the

physicists, on a macro scale, are twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

The universe is not expanding. It is infinite. It has no beginning nor end. It is eternal.

Einstein's theories are totally wrong. Had they been correct the distant galaxies would have been going away at very great speed. The boundary of the universe would have been found. Such has not happened. As many galaxies are coming towards us as

going away.

Arindam:

The laws of physics are incomplete and must be updated. You had earlier said that you had followed my experimental work and found it satisfactory. All other so-called physicists ignore my experimental work which by violating inertia upsets not just

modern physics nut conventional physics as well.

Yes, I have gone through your experiments and they are extremely convincing. Sorry for not qualifying my description and lumping you with others. I meant to say in a "large scale" experiment.

Thanks for that, most welcome.
What I want is that my experiments be done by everyone to show how inertia being violated.
In which case the path to adopting the new physics based upon revised laws of motion will be smooth.

In Labs, IMHO, anything can be proved in physics of astronomical bodies.

As far as I can see, their grand yet covert idea is to "prove" that there was some creation process, in order to justify the Jewish Old Testament which starts with their One True God making everything. They, the physicists, are twisting facts to suit
the theology of those who fund them. Not too deep down, they are living in the pre-Galileo era and will resist any change to such status quo. So the Big Bang Theory, with it links to the creation. They never liked Newtonian-Copernican physics and
astronomy, useful though they find them to be. They are happy with Aristotle and now Einstein with the Earth being at the centre of things. Instead of the stars in crystal spheres, the whole universe is finite and twisted up with the outer galaxies
shooting off at a fearsome rate - not that the last is shown by telescopes! As they cannot change their world view from the Bible-Genesis notions, they must twist up the whole of physics and persecute all those like me who upset their notions. Sad, but I
don't think this strategy will work for very long, it has worked long enough though. They do have the media, fiction, academics, celebs, moneybags, etc. on their side - just not a grain of truth.

One can even say ancient hindus like Arya Bhata had tremendous intuitions about the universe. But they never invented a telescope and tried to observe or experiment with astronomical bodies. If Lord Krishna said in Gita "I am the sun among the stars"

we had better believe to be good hindus. No hindu questions back at the authority (partly because of the fear that when you question authority, the authority will question you). I remember reading some scripture that said "The sun and planets revolve/
rotate around for the fear of Brahman." At the surface it is innocuous. Such seemingly simple declaration is hard to prove in science without accepting the Big Bang and the theories that ensued from it. This could all change if scientists can actually
create a big bang in the lab on a smaller scale.

Hinduism is a loose term, introduced by non-Hindus. Actually we are sanatan dharmis, or those who believe in the eternal state of things. Sanatana (eternal), akaal (forever, beyond scope of time), asheem (beyond limit), ananta (without end in time or
space) are the basic concepts that are everyday among those who call themselves HIndus. It is not about following some dogma like whatever who with some motive says about some scripture. It is about finding out what is our place in the grand scheme of
things and make the best of it with truth, goodness and beauty and may I add a sense of humour as well.
Now science is specific. Science is objective. Science is based on observation, prediction, analysis - all done honestly and neglecting nothing that is significant for the task at hand. So there are differences between the dogmatic approach and the
scientific approach. Telsscopes show that the universe is infinite, as there is existence beyond observation. My experiments show inertia violation, and that updates classical physics, no matter what certain holy texts may or may not say.

May I ask just one question now? Are you a liar like the rest of them?

I was a bad hindu. I am trying to claw back my way to be a good one.

Very good. In which case you have to think in terms of eternity and the infinite as everyday practical issues. Infinity is real at every moment of our lives. The universe is infinitely large; aether component is infinitely small; infinite attractions
exist from every charge in our bodies and all objects to every single charge in the universe - such is the way of the Prajapathirhishi, nothing mean or limited about the grace of the Supreme. Understand this, feel the infinite all around, and experience
Sat-chit-ananda, the continous heavenly bliss which will keep you away from all mischiefs, and set you up in the right directions.

As Tagore put it:
Sheemar maajahy ASHEEM tumi bajayo aapon shoor
Aamar moddhay tomaar prokash tai ato modhur

and in English, my translation:

Within this limit that is I, o You beyond limit, play Your tunes.
Your light is within me, which is why, they sound so very sweet.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Thanks for entertaining my questions. Please comment.

Sorry to offend you, but if you do support lies you have to face the charge of being a liar. It is either me, or the rest. Take your choice. There is no compromise between lie and truth. Either I violate inertia with my experiment, or I do not.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum, is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive? In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are

still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating, They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.
one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire.

He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the

electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:46:31 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 15:28:20 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:26:01 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core

of stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at

a certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are

so much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic.

We can see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel

and copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably

located with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a

torque, give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy.

Which get destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does

not disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations,

that can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are
more used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH?

There are no black holes. Light speed varies all the time, no big deal.

To answer myself, perhaps the galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the

physicists, on a macro scale, are twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

The universe is not expanding. It is infinite. It has no beginning nor end. It is eternal.

Einstein's theories are totally wrong. Had they been correct the distant galaxies would have been going away at very great speed. The boundary of the universe would have been found. Such has not happened. As many galaxies are coming towards us as

going away.

Arindam:

The laws of physics are incomplete and must be updated. You had earlier said that you had followed my experimental work and found it satisfactory. All other so-called physicists ignore my experimental work which by violating inertia upsets not just

modern physics nut conventional physics as well.

Yes, I have gone through your experiments and they are extremely convincing. Sorry for not qualifying my description and lumping you with others. I meant to say in a "large scale" experiment.

Thanks for that, most welcome.
What I want is that my experiments be done by everyone to show how inertia being violated.
In which case the path to adopting the new physics based upon revised laws of motion will be smooth.

In Labs, IMHO, anything can be proved in physics of astronomical bodies.

Arindam

As far as I can see, their grand yet covert idea is to "prove" that there was some creation process, in order to justify the Jewish Old Testament which starts with their One True God making everything. They, the physicists, are twisting facts to suit

the theology of those who fund them. Not too deep down, they are living in the pre-Galileo era and will resist any change to such status quo. So the Big Bang Theory, with it links to the creation. They never liked Newtonian-Copernican physics and
astronomy, useful though they find them to be. They are happy with Aristotle and now Einstein with the Earth being at the centre of things. Instead of the stars in crystal spheres, the whole universe is finite and twisted up with the outer galaxies
shooting off at a fearsome rate - not that the last is shown by telescopes! As they cannot change their world view from the Bible-Genesis notions, they must twist up the whole of physics and persecute all those like me who upset their notions. Sad, but I
don't think this strategy will work for very long, it has worked long enough though. They do have the media, fiction, academics, celebs, moneybags, etc. on their side - just not a grain of truth.

Thought the big-bang is based on the Budhist concept of "soonya". I am of the humble opinion that hindus should accept it as the sixth bootha besides fire, water, earth, sky and wind. What is wrong in positing everything came from soonya and everything
goes back to soonya? In this sense, I can say, god is soonya. Some people assume soonya is space/sky. I beg to differ. Unlike a black hole that devours everything near it, soonya is more intelligent and has built in the ability to regenerate the universe.
What do you think?

One can even say ancient hindus like Arya Bhata had tremendous intuitions about the universe. But they never invented a telescope and tried to observe or experiment with astronomical bodies. If Lord Krishna said in Gita "I am the sun among the stars"

we had better believe to be good hindus. No hindu questions back at the authority (partly because of the fear that when you question authority, the authority will question you). I remember reading some scripture that said "The sun and planets revolve/
rotate around for the fear of Brahman." At the surface it is innocuous. Such seemingly simple declaration is hard to prove in science without accepting the Big Bang and the theories that ensued from it. This could all change if scientists can actually
create a big bang in the lab on a smaller scale.

Hinduism is a loose term, introduced by non-Hindus. Actually we are sanatan dharmis, or those who believe in the eternal state of things. Sanatana (eternal), akaal (forever, beyond scope of time), asheem (beyond limit), ananta (without end in time or

space) are the basic concepts that are everyday among those who call themselves HIndus. It is not about following some dogma like whatever who with some motive says about some scripture. It is about finding out what is our place in the grand scheme of
things and make the best of it with truth, goodness and beauty and may I add a sense of humour as well.

Now science is specific. Science is objective. Science is based on observation, prediction, analysis - all done honestly and neglecting nothing that is significant for the task at hand. So there are differences between the dogmatic approach and the

scientific approach.

Telsscopes show that the universe is infinite, as there is existence beyond observation. My experiments show inertia violation, and that updates classical physics, no matter what certain holy texts may or may not say.

I agree implicitly that universe is more than just what telescopes show. However, for it to be infinite it needs to expand. That is what some physicists found out. Merely saying universe is infinite based on scripture, I think, is just intuition, not
empiricism.

May I ask just one question now? Are you a liar like the rest of them?

I was a bad hindu. I am trying to claw back my way to be a good one.

Very good. In which case you have to think in terms of eternity and the infinite as everyday practical issues. Infinity is real at every moment of our lives. The universe is infinitely large; aether component is infinitely small; infinite attractions

exist from every charge in our bodies and all objects to every single charge in the universe - such is the way of the Prajapathirhishi, nothing mean or limited about the grace of the Supreme. Understand this, feel the infinite all around, and experience
Sat-chit-ananda, the continous heavenly bliss which will keep you away from all mischiefs, and set you up in the right directions.

As Tagore put it:
Sheemar maajahy ASHEEM tumi bajayo aapon shoor
Aamar moddhay tomaar prokash tai ato modhur

and in English, my translation:

Within this limit that is I, o You beyond limit, play Your tunes.
Your light is within me, which is why, they sound so very sweet.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Thanks for entertaining my questions. Please comment.

Sorry to offend you, but if you do support lies you have to face the charge of being a liar. It is either me, or the rest. Take your choice. There is no compromise between lie and truth. Either I violate inertia with my experiment, or I do not.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum, is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive? In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours are

still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating, They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.
one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the

wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of

the electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 06:04:31 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:46:31 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 15:28:20 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:26:01 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core

of stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move

at a certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are

so much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more basic.

We can see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all

motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper. Steel

and copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones presumably

located with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a

torque, give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy.

Which get destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost

effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does

not disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your equations,

that can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that is, are
more used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH?

There are no black holes. Light speed varies all the time, no big deal.

To answer myself, perhaps the galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of the

physicists, on a macro scale, are twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

The universe is not expanding. It is infinite. It has no beginning nor end. It is eternal.

Einstein's theories are totally wrong. Had they been correct the distant galaxies would have been going away at very great speed. The boundary of the universe would have been found. Such has not happened. As many galaxies are coming towards us as

going away.

Arindam:

The laws of physics are incomplete and must be updated. You had earlier said that you had followed my experimental work and found it satisfactory. All other so-called physicists ignore my experimental work which by violating inertia upsets not

just modern physics nut conventional physics as well.

Yes, I have gone through your experiments and they are extremely convincing. Sorry for not qualifying my description and lumping you with others. I meant to say in a "large scale" experiment.

Thanks for that, most welcome.
What I want is that my experiments be done by everyone to show how inertia being violated.
In which case the path to adopting the new physics based upon revised laws of motion will be smooth.

In Labs, IMHO, anything can be proved in physics of astronomical bodies.

Arindam

As far as I can see, their grand yet covert idea is to "prove" that there was some creation process, in order to justify the Jewish Old Testament which starts with their One True God making everything. They, the physicists, are twisting facts to suit

the theology of those who fund them. Not too deep down, they are living in the pre-Galileo era and will resist any change to such status quo. So the Big Bang Theory, with it links to the creation. They never liked Newtonian-Copernican physics and
astronomy, useful though they find them to be. They are happy with Aristotle and now Einstein with the Earth being at the centre of things. Instead of the stars in crystal spheres, the whole universe is finite and twisted up with the outer galaxies
shooting off at a fearsome rate - not that the last is shown by telescopes! As they cannot change their world view from the Bible-Genesis notions, they must twist up the whole of physics and persecute all those like me who upset their notions. Sad, but I
don't think this strategy will work for very long, it has worked long enough though. They do have the media, fiction, academics, celebs, moneybags, etc. on their side - just not a grain of truth.

Thought the big-bang is based on the Budhist concept of "soonya". I am of the humble opinion that hindus should accept it as the sixth bootha besides fire, water, earth, sky and wind. What is wrong in positing everything came from soonya and everything

goes back to soonya?


Soonya is aum at its finest or the infinitely small aetheric component permeating the infinite universe. Everything comes from, goes through, and returnsvto aum or aether or soonya. Soonya while vanishingly small to infinitely mothing is also infinite
in number as the solid base for the workings of the universe. Such is the wisdom we get from our vedic forbears who carried on the key information from an earler cycle of intelligence. Probably from a species that were humanoid but left Earth long ago,
as mentioned in our traditions. It is all cyclic according to both Buddhism and Hinduism, and eternal thus. No big bang. This morning the Goddess Saraswati gave me the insight that the 3k radiation comes from the cores of all the stars and planets. How
wonderful! No big bang, no fusion, then.

In this sense, I can say, god is soonya. Some people assume soonya is space/sky. I beg to differ. Unlike a black hole that devours everything near it, soonya is more intelligent and has built in the ability to regenerate the universe. What do you think?

Soonya or aum or aether is the building block, the leggo shall we say of the supreme consciousness behind it, Whose wisdom we try to seek. The more we try on a moral basis the more of such wisdom we may find. It all depends upon the levels of bias,
ignorance, stubbornness involved that prevent from entering the grand scheme of divine consciousness. Too many concerned with the sensory and fleeting.

One can even say ancient hindus like Arya Bhata had tremendous intuitions about the universe. But they never invented a telescope and tried to observe or experiment with astronomical bodies. If Lord Krishna said in Gita "I am the sun among the

stars" we had better believe to be good hindus. No hindu questions back at the authority (partly because of the fear that when you question authority, the authority will question you). I remember reading some scripture that said "The sun and planets
revolve/rotate around for the fear of Brahman." At the surface it is innocuous. Such seemingly simple declaration is hard to prove in science without accepting the Big Bang and the theories that ensued from it. This could all change if scientists can
actually create a big bang in the lab on a smaller scale.

Hinduism is a loose term, introduced by non-Hindus. Actually we are sanatan dharmis, or those who believe in the eternal state of things. Sanatana (eternal), akaal (forever, beyond scope of time), asheem (beyond limit), ananta (without end in time or

space) are the basic concepts that are everyday among those who call themselves HIndus. It is not about following some dogma like whatever who with some motive says about some scripture. It is about finding out what is our place in the grand scheme of
things and make the best of it with truth, goodness and beauty and may I add a sense of humour as well.

Now science is specific. Science is objective. Science is based on observation, prediction, analysis - all done honestly and neglecting nothing that is significant for the task at hand. So there are differences between the dogmatic approach and the

scientific approach.

Telsscopes show that the universe is infinite, as there is existence beyond observation. My experiments show inertia violation, and that updates classical physics, no matter what certain holy texts may or may not say.

I agree implicitly that universe is more than just what telescopes show. However, for it to be infinite it needs to expand. That is what some physicists found out. Merely saying universe is infinite based on scripture, I think, is just intuition, not

empiricism.


What is infinite cannot expand for only the finite can expand. All physicists who believe in such illogic are deplorable. Infinity in the physics sense is existence beyond measurement. Telescopes prove infinity.

May I ask just one question now? Are you a liar like the rest of them?

I was a bad hindu. I am trying to claw back my way to be a good one.

Very good. In which case you have to think in terms of eternity and the infinite as everyday practical issues. Infinity is real at every moment of our lives. The universe is infinitely large; aether component is infinitely small; infinite attractions

exist from every charge in our bodies and all objects to every single charge in the universe - such is the way of the Prajapathirhishi, nothing mean or limited about the grace of the Supreme. Understand this, feel the infinite all around, and experience
Sat-chit-ananda, the continous heavenly bliss which will keep you away from all mischiefs, and set you up in the right directions.

As Tagore put it:
Sheemar maajahy ASHEEM tumi bajayo aapon shoor
Aamar moddhay tomaar prokash tai ato modhur

and in English, my translation:

Within this limit that is I, o You beyond limit, play Your tunes.
Your light is within me, which is why, they sound so very sweet.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Thanks for entertaining my questions. Please comment.

Sorry to offend you, but if you do support lies you have to face the charge of being a liar. It is either me, or the rest. Take your choice. There is no compromise between lie and truth. Either I violate inertia with my experiment, or I do not.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum, is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive? In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours

are still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the

wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of

the electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 06:04:31 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:46:31 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 15:28:20 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:26:01 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 04:40:17 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 2:29:30 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 08:28:12 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 02:11:56 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:37:09 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 14:15:53 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 8:41:16 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 02:55:40 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:43:34 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:46:02 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.

It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.

Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?

I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.

I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?

Arindam:

Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
All forces are thus unified.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?

By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or

core of stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.

Regards

I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

Arindam:

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to

move at a certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.

Arindam

In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they

are so much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.

Let me suggest a simple experiment. Hold a magnet below a paper and put some iron sprinkles on the paper. Keep moving the magnet and watch the iron sprinkles spin. This is a silly experiment but I can't think of anything more

basic. We can see that the iron sprinkles are doing work.

Yes. Force from the internal loop currents in the magnet is acting upon the temporary internal loop currents in the induced magnetism in the iron filings, causing them to move. This is basically the principle of operation of all

motors.

If the magnet is large enough like in a crane it can lift loads from ships to trucks. If this is a PMM, then I am awed beyond belief.

PMs won't be used for that. You need to switch off the magnetism, so they need an electromagnet for lifting loads. We use PMs to replace stators where there is need for winding to make it magnetic. That means, steel and copper.

Steel and copper get replaced in motors by PMs. That makes them lighter, smaller but not cheaper, for PMs use rare earths for their properties.

Arindam:

Permanet magnet motors have been around for decades now. The Chinese use permanent magnets to make perpetual motion machines. Yes, these machines are awesome beyond belief for those nurtured by old and wrong physics notions.

I see in my neighborhood so called "scooters". A rider stands while operating it. Is the scooter using a PM? Guess not, as they "die" when, I suspect, they run out of charge. The guys owning the scooters pick up the dead ones

presumably located with GPS. Can you please explain how the scooter works?

I suppose it is a battery running a electric motor. When the battery dies, the scooter does not work. If instead of a battery they had a perpetual motion motor using permanent magnets, then it would never die. The motor would produce a

torque, give that to a generator, which would produce electricity.

The Pakistanis made one such, put it on youtube. Look up the Perendev simulation, Bhaskaracharya's wheel, alibaba for the pmm, etc. Read some papers on permanent magnets, see how they are getting used even in large ship motors.
As I wrote before, making a fuel-less generator is expensive, and not efficient cost-wise. PMs use rare earths that are expensive. But PMs are replacing the stators, made of steel and copper. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.

Thanks

By the way, when permanent magnets are made in labs, there is a net energy consumption that goes into making them. So where is the PMM?

The PM will generate force always until physically damaged. So, it will create more energy than went into its making, but this point is basically invalid. The Sun always generates energy, violating the law of conservation of energy.

Which get destroyed in the infinite universe, to manifest as background noise.

Thanks

This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not

cost effective save for certain situations.

They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism

does not disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.

Regards

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Arindam:

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

I think in a closed system, such as in a lab, law of conservation of energy holds true. In a ginormous system it fails because of our limitation in understanding large numbers. If we have a good way to measure energy, such as your

equations, that can be applied to stars and galaxies then we can be sure that law of conservation of energy isn't true. On the other hand, hindus believe that from poornam if you remove poornam what remains is poornam. Physicists, conventional ones that
is, are more used to applying e=mcc for anything and everything of the cosmic scale assuming light of speed is a constant. Do you agree?

No.

Arindam:

The speed of light varies with the speed of emission, so the physicists are all liars or fools. As they are clever enough, to get PhDs, they cannot be called fools, but unscupulous careerist scoundrels thriving on lies.

Thank you for sharing your insight. I think the variance in the speed of light is taken into account in the case of black holes. Is there any "object" with mass that is moving at the speed of light except near a BH?

There are no black holes. Light speed varies all the time, no big deal.

To answer myself, perhaps the galaxies that have already receded from our telescopes. Hence the research into "expanding universe" by the Nobel laureate Schmidt et al. is significant. Sorry for my astute observation that you and the rest of

the physicists, on a macro scale, are twisting physics so as to satisfy your individual tastes. From a layman's perspective both of you are telling the same thing without doing experiments such as Newton and Copernicus, to mention a few.

The universe is not expanding. It is infinite. It has no beginning nor end. It is eternal.

Einstein's theories are totally wrong. Had they been correct the distant galaxies would have been going away at very great speed. The boundary of the universe would have been found. Such has not happened. As many galaxies are coming towards us

as going away.

Arindam:

The laws of physics are incomplete and must be updated. You had earlier said that you had followed my experimental work and found it satisfactory. All other so-called physicists ignore my experimental work which by violating inertia upsets not

just modern physics nut conventional physics as well.

Yes, I have gone through your experiments and they are extremely convincing. Sorry for not qualifying my description and lumping you with others. I meant to say in a "large scale" experiment.

Thanks for that, most welcome.
What I want is that my experiments be done by everyone to show how inertia being violated.
In which case the path to adopting the new physics based upon revised laws of motion will be smooth.

In Labs, IMHO, anything can be proved in physics of astronomical bodies.

Arindam

As far as I can see, their grand yet covert idea is to "prove" that there was some creation process, in order to justify the Jewish Old Testament which starts with their One True God making everything. They, the physicists, are twisting facts to

suit the theology of those who fund them. Not too deep down, they are living in the pre-Galileo era and will resist any change to such status quo. So the Big Bang Theory, with it links to the creation. They never liked Newtonian-Copernican physics and
astronomy, useful though they find them to be. They are happy with Aristotle and now Einstein with the Earth being at the centre of things. Instead of the stars in crystal spheres, the whole universe is finite and twisted up with the outer galaxies
shooting off at a fearsome rate - not that the last is shown by telescopes! As they cannot change their world view from the Bible-Genesis notions, they must twist up the whole of physics and persecute all those like me who upset their notions. Sad, but I
don't think this strategy will work for very long, it has worked long enough though. They do have the media, fiction, academics, celebs, moneybags, etc. on their side - just not a grain of truth.

Thought the big-bang is based on the Budhist concept of "soonya". I am of the humble opinion that hindus should accept it as the sixth bootha besides fire, water, earth, sky and wind. What is wrong in positing everything came from soonya and

everything goes back to soonya?

Soonya is aum at its finest or the infinitely small aetheric component permeating the infinite universe. Everything comes from, goes through, and returnsvto aum or aether or soonya. Soonya while vanishingly small to infinitely mothing is also infinite

in number as the solid base for the workings of the universe. Such is the wisdom we get from our vedic forbears who carried on the key information from an earler cycle of intelligence. Probably from a species that were humanoid but left Earth long ago,
as mentioned in our traditions. It is all cyclic according to both Buddhism and Hinduism, and eternal thus. No big bang. This morning the Goddess Saraswati gave me the insight that the 3k radiation comes from the cores of all the stars and planets. How
wonderful! No big bang, no fusion, then.

In this sense, I can say, god is soonya. Some people assume soonya is space/sky. I beg to differ. Unlike a black hole that devours everything near it, soonya is more intelligent and has built in the ability to regenerate the universe. What do you

think?

Soonya or aum or aether is the building block, the leggo shall we say of the supreme consciousness behind it, Whose wisdom we try to seek. The more we try on a moral basis the more of such wisdom we may find. It all depends upon the levels of bias,

ignorance, stubbornness involved that prevent from entering the grand scheme of divine consciousness. Too many concerned with the sensory and fleeting.

One can even say ancient hindus like Arya Bhata had tremendous intuitions about the universe. But they never invented a telescope and tried to observe or experiment with astronomical bodies. If Lord Krishna said in Gita "I am the sun among the

stars" we had better believe to be good hindus. No hindu questions back at the authority (partly because of the fear that when you question authority, the authority will question you). I remember reading some scripture that said "The sun and planets
revolve/rotate around for the fear of Brahman." At the surface it is innocuous. Such seemingly simple declaration is hard to prove in science without accepting the Big Bang and the theories that ensued from it. This could all change if scientists can
actually create a big bang in the lab on a smaller scale.

Hinduism is a loose term, introduced by non-Hindus. Actually we are sanatan dharmis, or those who believe in the eternal state of things. Sanatana (eternal), akaal (forever, beyond scope of time), asheem (beyond limit), ananta (without end in time

or space) are the basic concepts that are everyday among those who call themselves HIndus. It is not about following some dogma like whatever who with some motive says about some scripture. It is about finding out what is our place in the grand scheme of
things and make the best of it with truth, goodness and beauty and may I add a sense of humour as well.

Now science is specific. Science is objective. Science is based on observation, prediction, analysis - all done honestly and neglecting nothing that is significant for the task at hand. So there are differences between the dogmatic approach and the

scientific approach.

Telsscopes show that the universe is infinite, as there is existence beyond observation. My experiments show inertia violation, and that updates classical physics, no matter what certain holy texts may or may not say.

I agree implicitly that universe is more than just what telescopes show. However, for it to be infinite it needs to expand. That is what some physicists found out. Merely saying universe is infinite based on scripture, I think, is just intuition, not

empiricism.

Arindam:

What is infinite cannot expand for only the finite can expand. All physicists who believe in such illogic are deplorable. Infinity in the physics sense is existence beyond measurement. Telescopes prove infinity.

So is the visible universe finite or infinite? Imagine Earth is a ship in space. Just as a real ship on the ocean has GPS coordinates, Earth's co-ords are relative to the stars that are called standard candles. The data observed with telescopes over
several decades shows that the (visible?) universe is expanding. I presume some of the stars are no longer visible in the telescope and have become outliers. Is that a defect in telescopic measurement or human error? Where is the fallacy in this?

May I ask just one question now? Are you a liar like the rest of them?

I was a bad hindu. I am trying to claw back my way to be a good one.

Very good. In which case you have to think in terms of eternity and the infinite as everyday practical issues. Infinity is real at every moment of our lives. The universe is infinitely large; aether component is infinitely small; infinite

attractions exist from every charge in our bodies and all objects to every single charge in the universe - such is the way of the Prajapathirhishi, nothing mean or limited about the grace of the Supreme. Understand this, feel the infinite all around, and
experience Sat-chit-ananda, the continous heavenly bliss which will keep you away from all mischiefs, and set you up in the right directions.

As Tagore put it:
Sheemar maajahy ASHEEM tumi bajayo aapon shoor
Aamar moddhay tomaar prokash tai ato modhur

and in English, my translation:

Within this limit that is I, o You beyond limit, play Your tunes.
Your light is within me, which is why, they sound so very sweet.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Thanks for entertaining my questions. Please comment.

Sorry to offend you, but if you do support lies you have to face the charge of being a liar. It is either me, or the rest. Take your choice. There is no compromise between lie and truth. Either I violate inertia with my experiment, or I do not.

Stars continually emit radiation, which at any point in the universe is noise containing all frequencies. Energy is simply a way to use force to do work.

Force is the word. For real physicists, not bunny-ahs.

The universe is so designed that the interstellar distances are so very large that at any point the radiant electromagnetic forces at all frequencies from all stars add up to a force vector which when squared gives an energy value, which is

reasonably constant.

If force is amenable to arithmetic, and can be a zero sum, is it not fair to say energy can also be zero sum even if squared numbers are always positive? In any case, physics without math is zero in my humble opinion. Intuition such as yours

are still very valuable. Thank you for your kind consideration of my repeated questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Regards

Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

Regards

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the

wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel

of the electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

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