Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

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.
Nobody

reading your response to me would know that because you edited out
what I said.

They could always read what you said then, nothing to stop them. Thanks
for your interest.

>
A rail gun can be seen clearly recoiling in the video at this URL:
>
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223

Thanks for making our earlier point. Indeed a spring pushes the armature
on the rails causing the recoil you talk about. Purely mechanical that.
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. Making it slide instead
of roll would need more resources than Arindam can manage. However we
note that this reaction is also mechanical. Like a treadmill.
Now when the armature is moving fast the rolling friction reaction gets
much less. It just shoots through with the electromagnetic force and to
that there is no equal and opposite reaction.
Because such is the case, the momentum of the armature exceeds that of
the gun at the time the armature is arrested at the muzzle end as shown
in the video. The backwards motion is not just arrested. The whole
system moves forward. In outer space with no retardation from any matter
it would keep on moving.
In Arindam's video the centre of mass for the whole system clearly keeps
on shifting. Had the armature not arrested the gun, or had this
experiment been done in a frictionless environment, then the gun would
keep on moving.
Arindam has provided all the data and graphs for the railgun experiments
online in Facebook and Usenet and YouTube.  Clearly the centre of mass
shifts with internal force in every experiment. The pendulum experiments
with the gun in the 2017 videos show third law violation while the motor
mode shows first law violation.
Question is, how long will the scientific community remain in denial
about this experiment. When will they publicly and universally repeat
it?

>

Quite an East-West thingy, that!
>
Anyway, the Japanese and Chinese are making 600km/hr trains,

>
Do these marvelous trains break conservation of momentum?  If not,
then how are they relevant?

Just showing that the biased, arrogant, decadent West is not relevant to
the unapologetic brown Hindu Arindam whose chances for recognition are
better in the East.
Woof-woof woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor