Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 1:36:32 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:49:50 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
>

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.

>
Since the only reader worthy of notice is just you in these ggexit days
that is not much of an issue. We did not think you had written anything
for specific attention.

>

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?

>
Yes.
>
 Did his paper

ever get published in a journal?

>
It was published online and we have given the link in this thread.
>
 >>

Did he ever get his PhD?

>
No.
>
 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.

>
>
Actually he is the Galileo of our time getting persecuted by the church
that believed most strongly strongly that the Earth is still; the Sun
and the stars go around the Earth in moving crystal spheres - where the
stars are not suns but holes in the spheres that let in the light from
Heaven.
>
His inertia violation experiment with his new design rail gun makes all
the physicists look like flat earthers.
>
Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

>
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223
>
The two-second video you posted a link to shows a railgun with flexible
rails.

No the rails were fixed to the gun and not flexible.
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.

There are no batteries. There are capacitors. You are talking gibberish
here. The rails are fixed on a piece of wood which has a flat below
surface. The whole assembly sits on rollers and thus can go forward and
back. Which would be impossible if it was resting on the ground.
 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.

Correct. Thanks for your correct understanding. Most welcome.
In other words the centre of mass of the whole system moves forward with
the electric force. In free space it would keep on moving unless
retarded by friction or meeting an obstacle. Both these events happen
here in the video.

>
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.

Gibberish once again. Don't know what you are talking about.
The rollers are there to reduce drastically the friction between the gun
and the ground so that the gun system can move freely forward and
backward. To simulate this action in free space. The rails are not
flexible, to repeat.

>
If I wanted to test conservation of momentum with this kind of
apparatus, I would use rigid rails.

They are rigid all right and fixed to the gun.
 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.

Irrelevant. They are capacitors and just a mass for the purpose of
momentum calculations. Their vibration had no impact upon the force on
the projectile nor the reaction due to the rolling of the armature or
projectile upon the rails.
Bottom line is that the whole system gets momentum from rest, violating
inertia.

>
I would not accept the outcome of an experiment in which a piece of
the apparatus falls off.

Call it divine interference to show that external obstruction can stop
the movement of the gun which otherwise would keep on moving till
stopped by friction. Or never stopping in free space with no
constraints.
Anyway that is what Arindam was satisfied with and has brought his work
to a halt. He has other things to do.

>
The apparatus in the video doesn't look like it was designed to
detect a breakage of the conservation of momentum.

It gave a body net momentum with internal force and if that does not
violate the law of conservation of momentum what does.
 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.

It is a very simple design although the maths is very intricate.

>

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.