Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 3:43:44 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
>

On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:

Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!

>
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display.  Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?

>
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.

>

True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but
was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016
Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper.
However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete
details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new
theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.

>
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.

>
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction. Now mechanical force is needed to
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
component.

>
There is no mechanical force in a railgun, all the force is
electromagnetic, crackpot.

Not so, penisnono Penisnino. If you just put 1000000 amps through a
static bullet it will just weld, melt. You have to give it an initial
velocity through mechanical or chemical or magnetic means, and all those
have the smallish recoil one can see in practical rail guns, including
Arindam's.

>
<snip.

What a penisnono thing to do!

>

But the fun starts after that. The em force accelerates the armature and
to begin with the rolling friction on the rails keep on pushing the gun
back. Had it been sliding this would not happen.

>
Friction would pull the "gun" forward with the projectile, cracpot.

Not so, penisnono Penisnino. Rolling friction on the rails provide the
treadmill action on it to push it backwards, which is what happens in
Arindam's railgun.
As said earlier, if the bullet was sliding instead of rolling, then
there would not be the treadmill action, no recoil that way - and indeed
you are right for once, albeit by fluke, for wonders will never cease,
the gun would move forward.  But, penisnono, do check that the armature
is rolling on the gun, and rolling friction pushes the gun backwards
till the speed of the armature is such, it shoots forward with the em
force with little friction, gaining momentum, more than the backward
momentum. The momentum imbalance causes the whole system to go forward
with a given velocity.
Arindam has worked it all out on a frame by frame basis and showed the
actual values involved, like how much net velocity from the inertia
violation.
So the question remains - WILL TRUMP HAVE THE BALLS TO ASK HIS
SCIENTISTS TO REPEAT ARINDAM'S FANTASTIC FABULOUS BRILLIANT MOST
ORIGINAL GREATEST GENIUS EXPERIMENT, or will he keep on listening to the
Einsteinian penisnonos?
Note penisnono = (c*t)

>
<snip remaining insane babble>

Typical penisnono attitude from Penisnino.
Woof woof woof woof woof woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)