Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

On 12/8/24 21:50, Bertietaylor 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.

It's easier for readers to judge the quality of your response if your
response and what it is a response to are both on-screen at the same
time.

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.

So did he get to present his paper at the conference?  Did his paper
ever get published in a journal?  Did he ever get his PhD?  You say he
was stabbed in the back.  I say he was treated like a flat-Earther
trying to get a PhD in geology, and that treatment was probably
appropriate.
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223
The two-second video you posted a link to shows a railgun with flexible
rails.  At one point the rocking of the tower of batteries flexes the
rails so they lose contact with one of the rollers used to support the
rails.  The projectile is a cylindrical roller that hits stops at the
end of the rails, and knocks some kind of bumper over the stops and onto
the floor.  The railgun first moves rightward while the projectile is
being propelled leftward.  After the projectile hits the stops at the
end of the rails, the railgun moves leftward, colliding with the
dislodged bumper, which could affect the end result.
If the tower of batteries is half-way between two of the rollers that
support the rails, and something moves the tower closer to one of those
rollers than the other, on flexible rails there is a restoring force
that tends to move the tower back to half-way between the rollers.
If I wanted to test conservation of momentum with this kind of
apparatus, I would use rigid rails.  I would not build a shaky tower
of 12 upright batteries, 3 layers high, narrow at the bottom and wide
at the top.  They can be laid on their sides, 6 per rail, so that the
height of the pile is much lower, and widest at the bottom.
I would not accept the outcome of an experiment in which a piece of
the apparatus falls off.
The apparatus in the video doesn't look like it was designed to
detect a breakage of the conservation of momentum.  It looks
like the product of prolonged tinkering, making the apparatus
more and more complicated until, finally, it produced a result
that could be interpreted as a breakage of conservation of
by somebody who doesn't think about it deeply enough.

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.

Your direct quote from the 2013 paper described a lack of recoil.
I interpreted that as no recoil, and I expect that most native
English speakers would interpret it that way.
If you want to test conservation of momentum with this railgun
apparatus, use rigid rails, a compact arrangement of the batteries,
and a firmly attached bumper.  Take video starting from the
moment power is applied to the rails and ending when the projectile
comes into contact with the bumper.  If the distance the projectile
has moved multiplied by the projectile's mass is very different
from the distance the railgun has moved multiplied by the mass of
the railgun, then momentum was not conserved.
Conservation of momentum is very simple.  You don't need an elaborate
and flimsy apparatus that wobbles and rocks to test it.
  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.

I saw no mechanical device pushing the projectile to start
it moving.  I saw a motion blur of a hand dipping down to
do something and then moving up again quickly.  If I can't
see clearly what is happening, I have no reason to believe
that what is happening is what you say is happening.
Use a higher frame rate.  Nowadays bits are cheap.