Re: Getting there at last...

Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :

On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>
Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:

Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :

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