With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
Creating the overall background radiation.
Now you want to explain CMBR?
Easy. The fields from all the stars in the universe add up to form
background radiation, universal, and composed of all frequencies. They
make electronic oscillators possible. And nanotech too, with
nanovoltages to drive nanomachines. The fields from those stars at
infinity are zero, most of it from the nearby stars and galaxies.
bt
I personally think, that CMBR has nothing to do with the big-bang,
but is caused by the gravitational field of the Earth.
....
TH
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and
GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without
knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should
be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). ***
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in
crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let
heavenly light in.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not there.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows
jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see
neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and
their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves respect.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and
GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without
knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an >>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but
possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should >>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). ***
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) >>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well.
Sure.
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and
'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two
endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his
fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it.
No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in
crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let
heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in
the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because
they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene
in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not >>> there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows
jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see
neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and
their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful
nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves
respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would
understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to
physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their >>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of
youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they
said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some
reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My
detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and >>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without
knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an >>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but
possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should >>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). ***
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) >>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well.
Sure.
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and
'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two
endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his
fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it.
No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in
crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let
heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in
the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because
they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene
in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not >>> there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows
jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see
neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and >>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful >>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves >>> respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would
understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to >>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their >>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some
reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My
detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are
stepping on a lot of feet.
It's interesting, anyhow.
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which
worked quite well.
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it.
TH
Le 02/04/2024 ร 16:51, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and >>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without
knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an >>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but >>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should >>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). ***
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) >>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well.
Sure.
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and
'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two >>> endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his >>> fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it.
No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in >>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let
heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in
the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because
they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene
in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not >>>> there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows
jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see >>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and >>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful >>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves >>>> respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would
understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to >>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun >>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their >>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy,
perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design >> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my >> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of
youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they >> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my >> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some
reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My
detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now.
Thanks very much.
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are
stepping on a lot of feet.
Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start.
It's interesting, anyhow.
Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an
internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines.
How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my
maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that
is good.
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which
worked quite well.
My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website.
I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some
attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation
using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and
gearing up for space mining, etc.
Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia
violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like
being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion.
Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics
will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for
new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. Courage!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
*****
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ
Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ
*******
2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ
The cause of gravity https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ
*****
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it.
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and >>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without
knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an >>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but >>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should >>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). ***
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) >>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well.
Sure.
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and
'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two >>>> endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his >>>> fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it.
No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in >>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let
heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in
the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because
they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene
in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not >>>>> there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows
jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see >>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and >>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful >>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves >>>>> respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would
understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to >>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun >>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their >>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy,
perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design >>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my >>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of
youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they >>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my >>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some
reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My
detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are
stepping on a lot of feet.
It's interesting, anyhow.
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which
worked quite well.
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. >>
TH
a new design railgun is not the invention of a railgun.
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
they are both fruits but from different trees.
you cannot grow oranges in an apple tree.
Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
a new design railgun is not the invention of a railgun.
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
they are both fruits but from different trees.
you cannot grow oranges in an apple tree.
Sure. But I didn't wanted to cross apples and oranges.
My aim was, to conncect QM and GR into a single framework and make QM compatible with relativity.
My method was mainly, to start at the side of relativity and try to
build particles out of spacetime.
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Le 03/04/2024 ร 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a รฉcrit :
On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Le 02/04/2024 ร 16:51, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Sure.
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and
GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an
undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but
possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should
be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** >>>>>>>
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet)
notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. >>>>>>
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two
endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his
fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. >>>>>>No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in
crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let >>>>>>> heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene >>>>>> in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not
there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see
neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and
their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful
nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves
respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would
understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to
physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their
warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my
first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of >>>>> youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they
said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my
supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. >>> Thanks very much.
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are
stepping on a lot of feet.
Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the
universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start.
It's interesting, anyhow.
Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an
internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next
project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my
maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that
is good.
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which >>>> worked quite well.
My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website.
I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some
attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously
then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and
gearing up for space mining, etc.
Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia
violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only
appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all
knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion.
Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to
come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for
new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the
constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established
liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential.
Courage!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
*****
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ >>>
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ >>>
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ >>>
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ >>>
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>>
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ >>>
Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ >>>
*******
2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ >>>
The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ >>>
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ >>>
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ >>>
*****
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it.
TH
i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane.
No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as
scientists!
It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm >> thinking..
"I'm not going to eat anything here!"
Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot pretend it is bone broth.
Honesty above all.
One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what.
"Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come
up with one? ?
Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the film "Independence Day".
Fiction becomes fact, sometimes.
And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and technology will follow.
It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions.
So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for me.
My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change form in the process.
So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power.
How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth
do it for us.
in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man.
Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. And very simply too, in a way he could have done.
This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812
Can you get to the link and see the image?
Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE,
and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel
on and near Earth?
Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to
another...celestrial mechanics.
Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by those trying theological tricks relating to mystery.
BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum >> Teleportation? ? ?
No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein and Einstein's cohorts.
While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my point.
"Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me!
It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps opportunism, at least for me.
Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal"
"The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum
teleportation, which
represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and
'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other >> location, in order to be materialized there."
Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will
What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here:
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.html
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-sheet.html
Le 03/04/2024 ร 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a รฉcrit :
On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Le 02/04/2024 ร 16:51, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and
GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an
undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should
be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** >>>>>>>
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet)
notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well.
Sure.
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two >>>>>> endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his >>>>>> fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it.
No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let >>>>>>> heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be >>>>>> punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene >>>>>> in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not
there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and
their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful
nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves
respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would
understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to
physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their
warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy,
perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my
first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of >>>>> youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they
said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my
supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some
reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My
detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. >>> Thanks very much.
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are
stepping on a lot of feet.
Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the
universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start.
It's interesting, anyhow.
Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an
internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines.
How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my
maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that
is good.
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which
worked quite well.
My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website.
I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy
relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some
attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and
gearing up for space mining, etc.
Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia
violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all
knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion.
Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the
constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. >>> Courage!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
*****
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ
Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ
*******
2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ
The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ
*****
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it.
TH
i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane.
No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as
scientists!
It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm
thinking..
"I'm not going to eat anything here!"
Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot
pretend it is bone broth.
Honesty above all.
One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what.
"Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come
up with one? ?
Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the
film "Independence Day".
Fiction becomes fact, sometimes.
And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation.
That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and
technology will follow.
It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions.
So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for
me.
My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change form in the process.
So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power.
How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth
do it for us.
in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man.
Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. And very simply too, in a way he could have done.
This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812
Can you get to the link and see the image?
Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE,
and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel
on and near Earth?
Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to >> another...celestrial mechanics.
Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by those trying theological tricks relating to mystery.
BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum
Teleportation? ? ?
No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein
and Einstein's cohorts.
While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my point.
"Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me!
It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps
opportunism, at least for me.
Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's
Continuum of Spatio-Temporal"
"The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum >> teleportation, which
represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and
'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other
location, in order to be materialized there."
Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will
turn to top truth after that.
We can go to the stars, by travelling faster than light with internal
force. As I showed in my book "To the Stars!" published online in 2000.
My videos, above, make that clear.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
The Starmaker wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Le 03/04/2024 ร 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a รฉcrit :
On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Le 02/04/2024 ร 16:51, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Sure.
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and
GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an
undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but
possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should
be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** >>>>>>>
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet)
notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. >>>>>>
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and
'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two
endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his
fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. >>>>>>No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory.
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in
crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let >>>>>>> heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in
the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene
in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not
there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see
neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and
their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful
nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves
respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'.
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to
physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their
warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my
first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of
youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they
said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my
supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now.
Thanks very much.
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are >>>> stepping on a lot of feet.
Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the
universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start.
It's interesting, anyhow.
Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next
project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my
maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that
is good.
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which >>>> worked quite well.
My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website.
I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some
attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work
relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation
using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously
then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and >>> gearing up for space mining, etc.
Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like
being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only
appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all
knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. >>>
Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics
will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to
come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for
new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established
liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential.
Courage!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
*****
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ >>>
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ >>>
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ >>>
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ >>>
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>>
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ >>>
Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ >>>
*******
2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ >>>
The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ >>>
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ >>>
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ >>>
*****
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it.
TH
i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane.
No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as scientists!
It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm
thinking..
"I'm not going to eat anything here!"
Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot pretend it is bone broth.
Honesty above all.
One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what.
"Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come
up with one? ?
Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the film "Independence Day".
Fiction becomes fact, sometimes.
And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and technology will follow.
It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for me.
My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is
always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change
form in the process.
So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power.
How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth do it for us.
in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man.
Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue.
And very simply too, in a way he could have done.
This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812
Can you get to the link and see the image?
Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel on and near Earth?
Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to
another...celestrial mechanics.
Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by
those trying theological tricks relating to mystery.
BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum
Teleportation? ? ?
No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein and Einstein's cohorts.
While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my point.
"Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me!
It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps opportunism, at least for me.
Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's
Continuum of Spatio-Temporal"
"The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum
teleportation, which
represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and
'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other
location, in order to be materialized there."
Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will
What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here:
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.htmlhttps://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-sheet.ht
http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/tpx/barker/case_for_ufo.pdf
NOTE: Anyone reading this book would have to KNOW that Electron
quatums (sic), Within Molecular structures, are similar in scope of
"field" as Planets orbits. They Would Have to know that. Electrons in
Metal go across, What in Planetary Systems, would be BILLIONS OF MILES, Leaving three a Graviational field, Deadspot or Node, or Vortice or
Neutral as this one thing is variously called. Realizing this as Dr.
Albert Einstien did, it shows clearly how solids may become Energy or Dissolute AND How then they May Pass easily out of Visual scope
instantly. This is Merely one Clue gleamed from Einstiens Theory of a
Unified Magnetic Field through all substances AND throughout Whole inter-GalacticUniverse.U.S. EXPIERMENTS, 1943 ON ONE PART OF IT PROVED PLENTY!
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Le 03/04/2024 ร 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a รฉcrit :
On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Le 02/04/2024 ร 16:51, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Sure.
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
From your book, the following quote
***
This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and
GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without
knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an
undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but
possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should
be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). ***
Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet)
notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. >>>>>>
If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and
'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist.
It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two
endpoints of the way found.
If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his
fault.
In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. >>>>>>No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. >>>>>>
People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in
crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let
heavenly light in.
Well, that's not quite true, neither.
Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in
the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because
they were questioning the authority of the church.
That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be
punished by death.
This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene
in physics anymore.
The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not
there.
Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic.
While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows
jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see
neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and
their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful
nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves
respect.
You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. >>>>>>
Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to
physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their
warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun? ? ? ?
Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my
first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of
youtube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they
said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my
supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation.
I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'.
But your research is far more revolutionary than mine.
The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now.
Thanks very much.
So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are >>>> stepping on a lot of feet.
Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the
universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start.
It's interesting, anyhow.
Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines.
How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next
project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my
maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that
is good.
btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which >>>> worked quite well.
My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website.
I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy
relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work
relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation
using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously
then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and >>> gearing up for space mining, etc.
Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like
being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only
appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all
knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. >>>
Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics
will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to
come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for
new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established
liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential.
Courage!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
*****
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the
design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ
Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ
*******
2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ
The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ
*****
This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it.
TH
i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane.
No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as scientists!
It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm
thinking..
"I'm not going to eat anything here!"
Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot pretend it is bone broth.
Honesty above all.
One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what.
"Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come
up with one? ?
Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the
film "Independence Day".
Fiction becomes fact, sometimes.
And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and technology will follow.
It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions.
So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for
me.
My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is
always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change
form in the process.
So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power.
How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth
do it for us.
in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun,
Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man.
Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue.
And very simply too, in a way he could have done.
This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812
Can you get to the link and see the image?
Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel
on and near Earth?
Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to
another...celestrial mechanics.
Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by
those trying theological tricks relating to mystery.
BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum
Teleportation? ? ?
No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein
and Einstein's cohorts.
While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my
point.
"Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me!
It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps opportunism, at least for me.
Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's
Continuum of Spatio-Temporal"
"The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum
teleportation, which
represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and
'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other
location, in order to be materialized there."
Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will
What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here:
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.htmlhttps://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-shee
http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/tpx/barker/case_for_ufo.pdf
NOTE: Anyone reading this book would have to KNOW that Electron
quatums (sic), Within Molecular structures, are similar in scope of
"field" as Planets orbits. They Would Have to know that. Electrons in
Metal go across, What in Planetary Systems, would be BILLIONS OF MILES, Leaving three a Graviational field, Deadspot or Node, or Vortice or
Neutral as this one thing is variously called. Realizing this as Dr.
Albert Einstien did, it shows clearly how solids may become Energy or Dissolute AND How then they May Pass easily out of Visual scope
instantly. This is Merely one Clue gleamed from Einstiens Theory of a Unified Magnetic Field through all substances AND throughout Whole inter-GalacticUniverse.U.S. EXPIERMENTS, 1943 ON ONE PART OF IT PROVED PLENTY!
While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he started
working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can
be made to disapear and
reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his
grand unified theiroy.
He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war department.
Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany?
Le 03/04/2024 ร 16:58, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :...
Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
missile at hypersonic speeds.
As for my gun, check out https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
Both are nonsense to me.
When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also busted. Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
I hope you realise that one day.
Le 05/04/2024 ร 18:49, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 03/04/2024 ร 16:58, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :...
Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
missile at hypersonic speeds.
As for my gun, check out
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
Both are nonsense to me.
When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
busted.
Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
I hope you realise that one day.
I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies'
(here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
and know what you mean.
But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum (aether) pervading the universe.
So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am today, by the establishment.
The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but toNo.
politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great energies released are due to e=mcc.
It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
very often:
It is nonsense, period.
we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
real.
A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
causing interference.
But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
change.
About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
That was mainly the particle concept itself.
Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
the big bang.
Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 05/04/2024 ร 18:49, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 03/04/2024 ร 16:58, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :...
Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
missile at hypersonic speeds.
As for my gun, check out
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
Both are nonsense to me.
When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
busted.
Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
I hope you realise that one day.
I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies'
(here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) >>
and know what you mean.
But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves relative to something else.
It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is self-contradicting.
We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum (aether) pervading the universe.
Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
Science can only deliver truth.
So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am today, by the establishment.
Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail
guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political worldmap.
The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great energies released are due to e=mcc.
It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
very often:
It is nonsense, period.No.
There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
real.
A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, causing interference.
But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').
They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
multiplied together with the neighbor.
The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the
axes of space.
Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
to return to the initial state.
After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
That world is made from anti-matter.
But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs backwards.
That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
on the own point of view.
E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
who is correct.
Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do change.
Sure, but time is local!
This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
belong and which we could not leave.
So: WE have only one single forward time.
But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different
time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.
Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as
well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
in an angle.
About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
That was mainly the particle concept itself.
Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
the big bang.
Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
he was a jesuit priest.
But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that
Earth is in fact growing.
It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
...
TH
Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize?
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 05/04/2024 ร 18:49, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 03/04/2024 ร 16:58, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :...
Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
missile at hypersonic speeds.
As for my gun, check out
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
Both are nonsense to me.
When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
busted.
Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
I hope you realise that one day.
I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies'
(here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) >>
and know what you mean.
But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves relative to something else.
It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is self-contradicting.
We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum (aether) pervading the universe.
Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
Science can only deliver truth.
So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am today, by the establishment.
Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political worldmap.
The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great energies released are due to e=mcc.
It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
very often:
It is nonsense, period.No.
There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
real.
A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, causing interference.
But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').
They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
multiplied together with the neighbor.
The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the axes of space.
Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
to return to the initial state.
After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
That world is made from anti-matter.
But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs backwards.
That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
on the own point of view.
E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
who is correct.
Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no change. However even in such situations outside the situation the estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do change.
Sure, but time is local!
This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
belong and which we could not leave.
So: WE have only one single forward time.
But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.
Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
in an angle.
About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
That was mainly the particle concept itself.
Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
the big bang.
Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
he was a jesuit priest.
But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that
Earth is in fact growing.
It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
...
TH
Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize?
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize?
Maybe because all facets of 'Earth Science' are covered by existing categories, which should be obvious.
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 05/04/2024 ร 18:49, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :
Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 03/04/2024 ร 16:58, Thomas Heger a รฉcrit :...
Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Le 30/03/2024 ร 18:48, Thomas Heger a รยฉcrit :
Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
Maybe you like my 'book'
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
missile at hypersonic speeds.
As for my gun, check out
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
Both are nonsense to me.
When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also >>> busted.
Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
I hope you realise that one day.
I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics >> of moving bodies'
(here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
and know what you mean.
But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves relative to something else.
It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is self-contradicting.
We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
(aether) pervading the universe.
Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
Science can only deliver truth.
So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am today, by the establishment.
Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political worldmap.
The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
energies released are due to e=mcc.
It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
very often:
It is nonsense, period.No.
There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both >> real.
A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, causing interference.
But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').
They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
multiplied together with the neighbor.
The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the axes of space.
Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations to return to the initial state.
After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
That world is made from anti-matter.
But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs backwards.
That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend on the own point of view.
E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
who is correct.
Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no change. However even in such situations outside the situation the estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do change.
Sure, but time is local!
This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
belong and which we could not leave.
So: WE have only one single forward time.
But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.
Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
in an angle.
About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
That was mainly the particle concept itself.
Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
the big bang.
Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and he was a jesuit priest.
But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that Earth is in fact growing.
It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
...
TH
Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize?
I forgot to include Math category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize.
Charles Darwin would have not have gotten one either...
No.
The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great >>> energies released are due to e=mcc.
It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
very often:
It is nonsense, period.
There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
real.
A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. >>> Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
causing interference.
But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex
four-vectors').
Theory is fine, so long as fact is also involved, in the scientific method.
They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
multiplied together with the neighbor.
Where is that field? Any measurements possible?
The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units
the axes of space.
Makes no sense.
Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two
rotations to return to the initial state.
Makes no sense.
After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
The axis "of time?" was said to be imaginary, now how can it suddenly
become real?
Rest makes no sense.
Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in
fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
Far too imaginary. Makes no sense in the scientific sense.
That world is made from anti-matter.
From an assumption made earlier, we now come to presumption.
Makes no scientific sense.
But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time
runs backwards.
Amazing how imaginations and assumptions suddenly become realities.
While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he started
working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can
be made to disapear and
reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his
grand unified theiroy.
He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war department.
Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany?
Am 04.04.2024 um 07:58 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he started
working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can
be made to disapear and
reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his
grand unified theiroy.
He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war department.
Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany?
As far as I know he didn't.
But he worked together with Leo Szillard in Berlin and Leo Szillard is assumed to be the 'father' of the atomic bomb.
So, I assume, that Albert Einstein was at least an uncle.
TH
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 48:19:09 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,283 |
| Posted today: | 1 |