Re: Arindam's new physics - energy is eternally created and destroyed

Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
 

On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
>

On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
>

bertietaylor:

The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
>
***
>
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into
near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
>
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and
imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
>

>
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias):
>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to
your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
>
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid
mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the
fluid!

>
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
>
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
>
Jan

>
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.

>
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?

 
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?

Because nothing has been done yet.
An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been correctly
interpreted. Your say-so doesn't qualify as correct interpretation.
The first step in achieving that is to publish it under peer review,
to make it likely that the most obvious errors have been avoided.
Next, if it looks worthwhile, others may try to reproduce it.
If they succeed there may be a possibilty that you are on to something.

Base experience so far: all proposed 'reactionless EM drives'
have been found to be based on erroneous interpretation of experiments.
(on more competent testing)
You have not given any reason for believing yours to be any better.

Jan