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

On 2024-10-14 14:09:29 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
 

Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
 

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

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

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

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

bertietaylor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,

 Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false) that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur, but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of Marie Mikhailovna Manasseïn: few people today have heard of her, and of those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free fermentation 15

25. I'm not getting any younger, and arithmetic that would have once been utterly trivial is now error-prone.

 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly in England until 1987.