Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #877622 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-15 14:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-09-27 07:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 163 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 14:37 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 17:59 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-16 18:05 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 18:29 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-16 20:48 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 22:33 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-17 06:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 14:29 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-17 15:02 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 06:51 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 06:09 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-05 14:15 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-06 08:33 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 08:34 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 11:15 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 13:25 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-15 10:58 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 15:29 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 08:23 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-17 14:46 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 22:30 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-17 19:01 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 03:07 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2023-07-17 04:19 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 04:58 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-17 22:21 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 06:01 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-18 11:56 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 07:05 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-19 06:37 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 16:55 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:37 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:47 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 04:42 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-23 15:03 -0400
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:17 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-25 16:25 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:54 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 05:19 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 11:53 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-23 19:46 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 04:52 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-23 22:00 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:29 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:39 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-24 21:44 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 07:38 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-25 08:52 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:02 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:58 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 00:34 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 11:51 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:16 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:30 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:59 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 00:54 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 11:51 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 00:27 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 18:52 +0200
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 11:50 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 19:09 +0200
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 11:53 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 16:52 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 05:07 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 11:19 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-27 14:46 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 16:40 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 18:19 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-27 23:01 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 22:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 08:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 14:19 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 22:32 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 23:00 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 00:07 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 08:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 17:03 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 14:21 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 12:25 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-30 12:48 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 14:27 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:51 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 14:55 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 23:06 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-06 15:08 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 22:59 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-07 10:19 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-06 19:43 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:17 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:41 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-10 15:22 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 23:55 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 15:57 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:47 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 14:57 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <rehashedrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 08:45 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 14:26 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 15:19 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 08:33 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-15 10:52 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-15 15:37 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 14:37 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-08-15 14:54 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 16:06 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-08-15 16:32 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 21:34 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-08-16 07:28 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:16 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 14:05 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 19:47 -0400
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 18:12 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 05:24 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 05:10 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:21 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 13:41 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 15:24 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:05 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 17:35 -0400
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:24 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-10 17:36 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 23:53 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 09:10 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 15:09 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:02 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:41 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-07 14:14 +1000
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 21:52 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:58 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 07:00 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 05:50 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 14:42 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 13:31 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 08:31 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 16:01 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 14:16 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 13:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 14:46 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 14:54 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 16:28 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 11:32 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-05 08:50 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 07:10 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 14:13 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 15:19 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 19:55 -0500
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 23:47 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 15:36 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 18:47 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 18:51 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 20:22 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 18:19 -0700
Re: Reactionless motors for space travel, with mercury rails Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 07:12 -0700
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51f8b7fb-e96e-4673-8a8a-2cc2abe925b2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #879198 |
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:24:47 AM UTC-7, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 8/17/2023 8:12 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > - moronic opinions, causing side-splitting laughter, from the moron Moroney snipped - > Vulva still active in sci.physics? God what an ass-kisser one can be to > behave differently in different newsgroups :( Yucks. > > Seen them everywhere, Iran and USA. Type 4 autistic, petty criminals. > You Arindam at least fall into major criminals category! You preserve > your mettle regardless of where you may be. > "I think people think they have BPD, sometimes."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47d7429a-e593-46c5-911e-ddc55e5a5379n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #879238 |
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:41:05 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:24:47 AM UTC-7, Physfitfreak wrote: > > On 8/17/2023 8:12 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > - moronic opinions, causing side-splitting laughter, from the moron Moroney snipped - > > Vulva still active in sci.physics? God what an ass-kisser one can be to > > behave differently in different newsgroups :( Yucks. > > > > Seen them everywhere, Iran and USA. Type 4 autistic, petty criminals. > > You Arindam at least fall into major criminals category! You preserve > > your mettle regardless of where you may be. > > > "I think people think they have BPD, sometimes." "BPD?" "Borderline personality disorder."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-18 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad17bb87-aaa1-49cc-9814-f84f32eaad01n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #879093 |
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:49:13 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 8/16/2023 10:28 AM, Jim Pennino wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 09:46:09 UTC+10, Jim Pennino wrote: > >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 08:01:12 UTC+10, Jim Pennino wrote: > >>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 01:52:25 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > >>>>>>> On 8/15/2023 10:33 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:19:45 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:26:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 01:45:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 2:57:25 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 01:48:01 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:57:18 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 16:55:42 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 06:22:24 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its usual rubbish, avoiding the key question, how much is the floor of my garage or shed sloped to let the armature roll down the rails with the force of gravity... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To think that such whodat-class creeps rule the world, makes the flesh crawl. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The land of MIT", oh my goodness, not at all the parvenu, very good, very good. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Like Mohicans now. Gone with the wind. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Greed and cowardice have done them in. > >>>>>>>>>>>> E=mcc=hv rules! There, and everywhere. Sad. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Else they would have invited me to give lecture-demos of my rail gun experiments. > >>>>>>>>>>> "You don't really know any science, do you? I don't know much, myself." > >>>>>>>>>> And unwilling to learn, naturally. > >>>>>>>>> "I'm not looking to get hired, here." #hinthint > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (Tired claptrap, mountains and mountains of it.) > >>>>>>> Arindam gets wound up very easily. Recently he was an assistant > >>>>>>> men's room attendant. In those days it was all shit talk. These > >>>>>>> "mountains of claptrap" represent a wonderful advance on his part. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Perhaps soon he will calm down into rationality. > >>>>>> Alas, that sort of whodumbic "rationality", that is, incredible mendacity for suppression purposes,will not explain why the rail gun of my new design, with low voltage and heavy armature, works. > >>>>> The US Navy spent 15 years and $500,000,000 and came to the conclusion > >>>>> that railguns are not practical. > >> > >> Heh-heh, given half that sum I would have made not only a rail gun firing heavy missiles that would reach hypersonic speeds, but a ship to the Moon with my internal force engines. > >> But what to say, the whodumbos rule! > >> > >>>> God bless the USNavy, and Lt. Schroder of the US Navy whose work on rail gun recoil was the basis for my failed PhD. > >>>> Their design was based on conventional artillery. Mine is not. > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe you should send them a proposal for your wonderous invention. > >>>> Good idea. Think I owe them that. As things are, I am more interested in revising the basics of physics for better morality and technology. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course, they will want to see a working railgun and a full analysis... > >>>> For which they only need to see my 2017 and 2022 videos available on youtube. > >>> Like I said, a WORKING railgun and a FULL analysis with data readings, > >>> graphs, equations, etc., NOT some half assed video with no analysis. > >> > >> Those videos are not for fools. > >> Understanding those videos calls for far superior intelligence, breadth of view, and knowledge than what I have found in Usenet. > >> Very very few in the viewing public may meet that criteria. But I have no doubt that a brilliant person with some knowledge of calculas and electrical engineering will understand, if that person has an open mind. > >> My scientific works presented in a new and original medium (incontrovertible video with explanations) are for trained and established professionals, successful in their own disciplines, for further development; not for those who call themselves physicists, among whom some may pretend to be engineers. > > > > Your videos do not stand up to the demands of a 5th grade science > > report, much less what is required for real science. > Video (or any other) evidence in a court is not introduced in a vacuum. > It is an item of evidence and a witness (often the maker of a video or > an expert witness) is called to testify what the video shows under > examination, and a cross examining lawyer can counter what the witness > describes. > > (I was an alternate juror for a trial including video evidence just > recently) "Does that count as a violation of rules for jurors, i.e. perjury?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-18 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uboo79$dcsq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #879145 |
On 8/18/2023 4:05 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > "Does that count as a violation of rules for jurors, i.e. perjury?" No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0032df6-323d-4327-a1a8-9940ec8d8448n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #879024 |
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 14:34:27 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 09:46:09 UTC+10, Jim Pennino wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 08:01:12 UTC+10, Jim Pennino wrote: > > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 01:52:25 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > > >> >> On 8/15/2023 10:33 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > >> >> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:19:45 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > >> >> >> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:26:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >> >> >>> On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 01:45:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > >> >> >>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 2:57:25 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >> >> >>>>> On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 01:48:01 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > >> >> >>>>>> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:57:18 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >> >> >>>>>>> On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 16:55:42 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >> >> >>>>>>>> On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 06:22:24 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >>>>>>>> its usual rubbish, avoiding the key question, how much is the floor of my garage or shed sloped to let the armature roll down the rails with the force of gravity... > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >> >>>>>>>> To think that such whodat-class creeps rule the world, makes the flesh crawl. > > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> Really! > > >> >> >>>>>> "The land of MIT", oh my goodness, not at all the parvenu, very good, very good. > > >> >> >>>>> Like Mohicans now. Gone with the wind. > > >> >> >>>>> Greed and cowardice have done them in. > > >> >> >>>>> E=mcc=hv rules! There, and everywhere. Sad. > > >> >> >>>>> Else they would have invited me to give lecture-demos of my rail gun experiments. > > >> >> >>>> "You don't really know any science, do you? I don't know much, myself." > > >> >> >>> And unwilling to learn, naturally. > > >> >> >> "I'm not looking to get hired, here." #hinthint > > >> >> > > > >> >> > (Tired claptrap, mountains and mountains of it.) > > >> >> Arindam gets wound up very easily. Recently he was an assistant > > >> >> men's room attendant. In those days it was all shit talk. These > > >> >> "mountains of claptrap" represent a wonderful advance on his part. > > >> >> > > >> >> Perhaps soon he will calm down into rationality. > > >> > Alas, that sort of whodumbic "rationality", that is, incredible mendacity for suppression purposes,will not explain why the rail gun of my new design, with low voltage and heavy armature, works. > > >> The US Navy spent 15 years and $500,000,000 and came to the conclusion > > >> that railguns are not practical. And here in Victoria our Oremier Andrews is paying up $380000000 from taxpayer money to NOT have the Commonwealth Games here as that would cost $2000000000. Wow. > Heh-heh, given half that sum I would have made not only a rail gun firing heavy missiles that would reach hypersonic speeds, but a ship to the Moon with my internal force engines. > But what to say, the whodumbos rule! > > > God bless the USNavy, and Lt. Schroder of the US Navy whose work on rail gun recoil was the basis for my failed PhD. > > > Their design was based on conventional artillery. Mine is not. > > >> > > >> Maybe you should send them a proposal for your wonderous invention. > > > Good idea. Think I owe them that. As things are, I am more interested in revising the basics of physics for better morality and technology. > > > > > >> > > >> Of course, they will want to see a working railgun and a full analysis... > > > For which they only need to see my 2017 and 2022 videos available on youtube. > > Like I said, a WORKING railgun and a FULL analysis with data readings, > > graphs, equations, etc., NOT some half assed video with no analysis. > Those videos are not for fools. > Understanding those videos calls for far superior intelligence, breadth of view, and knowledge than what I have found in Usenet. > Very very few in the viewing public may meet that criteria. But I have no doubt that a brilliant person with some knowledge of calculas and electrical engineering will understand, if that person has an open mind. > My scientific works presented in a new and original medium (incontrovertible video with explanations) are for trained and established professionals, successful in their own disciplines, for further development; not for those who call themselves physicists, among whom some may pretend to be engineers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-10 17:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kjl737Fi3glU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #878603 |
On 8/10/2023 3:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > The idea of advanced science in very ancient India is mainly supported by what is known as the "Roy" translation of the Mahabharata. This version was written after the discovery of the atomic bomb and devised to seem as if atomic power and airplanes were known in 3000 BCE, including "mercury vortex powered" vimanas. More appropriate to be discussed at one of the highlighted newsgroups at: http://www.mit.edu/people/tgowrish/tgowrish/india_ngroups.html Do you know what "physics" is? "vimanas" Vimāna are mythological flying palaces or chariots described in Hindu texts and Sanskrit epics. The "Pushpaka Vimana"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana But then almost everything you've been posting here involves mythology of one sort or another. That appears to be a crankish characteristic. If you have Indian ancestry please take culturally related topics like the above to one of the culturally appropriate newsgroups. Banerjee keeps attempting to bring his Hindu gods and goddesses into sci.physics and they're not happy with the prospects of standard western critique.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-10 23:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb477a1f-b0d7-4407-bcb7-2db7f3dc8561n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #878782 |
On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 08:36:30 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > On 8/10/2023 3:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: So how much is my garage floor tilted so that the armature can roll down by the force of gravity, whodumbo? Let us get that straight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-11 09:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd24ff47-c19a-4c44-9124-5df679ca6b1cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #878792 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 08:36:30 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > > On 8/10/2023 3:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > So how much is my garage floor tilted so that the armature can roll down by the force of gravity, whodumbo? > Let us get that straight. Wider World: "Even the Indian fraud gets mad, and so on."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-11 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa92576a-3f34-450b-bd07-241f176af7e4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #878818 |
On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 02:10:51 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 08:36:30 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > > > On 8/10/2023 3:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > So how much is my garage floor tilted so that the armature can roll down by the force of gravity, whodumbo? > > Let us get that straight. > Wider World: "Even the Indian fraud gets mad, and so on." And that is the best the land of MIT can do these days. How things degenerate!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-12 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca3bcb92-4cb9-496c-bc22-f8868731c9afn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #878827 |
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:09:49 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 02:10:51 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:53:25 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 08:36:30 UTC+10, whodat wrote: > > > > On 8/10/2023 3:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > So how much is my garage floor tilted so that the armature can roll down by the force of gravity, whodumbo? > > > Let us get that straight. > > Wider World: "Even the Indian fraud gets mad, and so on." > And that is the best the land of MIT can do these days. > How things degenerate! "The land of MIT", very good, very good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5884bde-a48a-462b-900a-3efc6354ead9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #878601 |
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 10:19:41 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 06-Aug-23 3:59 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 15:08:47 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 31-July-23 7:55 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Note my explanations in the text for this above post. "First testing > >>> of the latest rail gun with the heavy 7.163 Kg bullet that is heavier > >>> than the gun. It runs on 8.2 volts. If it ran at 1000 V it would send > >>> the bullet which could be a missile to hypersonic speeds. > >> The video shows more or less constant velocity after a short period of > >> acceleration. But even if the the acceleration were maintained, the > >> current goes up with the voltage, and so does the acceleration. But the > >> resulting velocity only goes up with the square root of the > >> acceleration, and consequently only with the square root of the voltage. > > > > Wow, this beats Archiebabble for sure. > > > >> > >> I'm rather doubtful of your hypersonic claim. > >> > >> Sylvia. > I take it you don't understand the elementary physics involved. I am sure you and your sort have forgotten what you may perhaps have learnt about Newtonian equations in middle school about physics, what with the e=mcc=hv expensive and disastrous nonsenses. Problem is, that when e=mcc abuse of reason and science is done, institutions like MIT go sadly astray. As we can see from the following in my facebook timeline from one MIT guy whose school has gone biotech! Well what to do, if they follow the wrong rocket science approach, they are bound to fail. *** For instance, the electromagnet for our MHD generator at Tech consumed a lot of power. The generator never produced more than 10% of(-)power than consumed... But the geometry of the UFO eliminates the need for the electromagnet[EM].👈 A stationary charge creates an electric "E" field. A moving charge creates an EM field BUT, Tech does not believe in ufos... And, my MHD generator is gone & the school focused on biotech. **** My response: It is sad to see that MIT is doing such nonsense. They must be under the influence of Einsteinians. They would do much much better to follow my new physics that updates Newtonian mechanics by adjusting the laws of motion. Had I been taken seriously in 2000 when I published my book "To the stars!" we could be making hourly trips to the Moon today. Anyway all info is there online and the relevant links are accessible in Sci.physics > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a728e40a-2f38-4d51-a70d-3de1ed8abcfan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #878604 |
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 11:02:06 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 10:19:41 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 06-Aug-23 3:59 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 15:08:47 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 31-July-23 7:55 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Note my explanations in the text for this above post. "First testing > > >>> of the latest rail gun with the heavy 7.163 Kg bullet that is heavier > > >>> than the gun. It runs on 8.2 volts. If it ran at 1000 V it would send > > >>> the bullet which could be a missile to hypersonic speeds. > > >> The video shows more or less constant velocity after a short period of > > >> acceleration. But even if the the acceleration were maintained, the > > >> current goes up with the voltage, and so does the acceleration. But the > > >> resulting velocity only goes up with the square root of the > > >> acceleration, and consequently only with the square root of the voltage. > > > > > > Wow, this beats Archiebabble for sure. > > > > > >> > > >> I'm rather doubtful of your hypersonic claim. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > I take it you don't understand the elementary physics involved. > I am sure you and your sort have forgotten what you may perhaps have learnt about Newtonian equations in middle school about physics, what with the e=mcc=hv expensive and disastrous nonsenses. > > > Problem is, that when e=mcc abuse of reason and science is done, institutions like MIT go sadly astray. > As we can see from the following in my facebook timeline from one MIT guy whose school has gone biotech! > Well what to do, if they follow the wrong rocket science approach, they are bound to fail. https://spacepropulsion.mit.edu/about-electric-propulsion?fbclid=IwAR1kU2rT2erPQA72EztHLtScM4AY7ga8RPOKstZ5EOjiZ6qIZGw3M7DQImg > > *** > For instance, the electromagnet for our MHD generator at Tech consumed a lot of power. The generator never produced more than 10% of(-)power than consumed... > But the geometry of the UFO eliminates the need for the electromagnet[EM].👈 > A stationary charge creates an electric "E" field. > A moving charge creates an EM field > BUT, Tech does not believe in ufos... > And, my MHD generator is gone & the school focused on biotech. > > **** > > My response: > It is sad to see that MIT is doing such nonsense. They must be under the influence of Einsteinians. They would do much much better to follow my new physics that updates Newtonian mechanics by adjusting the laws of motion. Had I been taken seriously in 2000 when I published my book "To the stars!" we could be making hourly trips to the Moon today. Anyway all info is there online and the relevant links are accessible in Sci.physics > > > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 14:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kjb9dtFtir8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #878604 |
On 07-Aug-23 11:02 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 10:19:41 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 06-Aug-23 3:59 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 15:08:47 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 31-July-23 7:55 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note my explanations in the text for this above post. "First testing >>>>> of the latest rail gun with the heavy 7.163 Kg bullet that is heavier >>>>> than the gun. It runs on 8.2 volts. If it ran at 1000 V it would send >>>>> the bullet which could be a missile to hypersonic speeds. >>>> The video shows more or less constant velocity after a short period of >>>> acceleration. But even if the the acceleration were maintained, the >>>> current goes up with the voltage, and so does the acceleration. But the >>>> resulting velocity only goes up with the square root of the >>>> acceleration, and consequently only with the square root of the voltage. >>> >>> Wow, this beats Archiebabble for sure. >>> >>>> >>>> I'm rather doubtful of your hypersonic claim. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >> I take it you don't understand the elementary physics involved. > > I am sure you and your sort have forgotten what you may perhaps have learnt about Newtonian equations in middle school about physics, what with the e=mcc=hv expensive and disastrous nonsenses. > > > Problem is, that when e=mcc abuse of reason and science is done, institutions like MIT go sadly astray. > As we can see from the following in my facebook timeline from one MIT guy whose school has gone biotech! > Well what to do, if they follow the wrong rocket science approach, they are bound to fail. I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. It has nothing to do with the simple Newtonian equations that yield the result I described. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 21:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7364f704-bab9-4d54-bbfb-470b75c61a93n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #878614 |
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 14:15:00 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 07-Aug-23 11:02 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 10:19:41 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 06-Aug-23 3:59 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 15:08:47 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 31-July-23 7:55 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Note my explanations in the text for this above post. "First testing > >>>>> of the latest rail gun with the heavy 7.163 Kg bullet that is heavier > >>>>> than the gun. It runs on 8.2 volts. If it ran at 1000 V it would send > >>>>> the bullet which could be a missile to hypersonic speeds. > >>>> The video shows more or less constant velocity after a short period of > >>>> acceleration. But even if the the acceleration were maintained, the > >>>> current goes up with the voltage, and so does the acceleration. But the > >>>> resulting velocity only goes up with the square root of the > >>>> acceleration, and consequently only with the square root of the voltage. > >>> > >>> Wow, this beats Archiebabble for sure. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm rather doubtful of your hypersonic claim. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >> I take it you don't understand the elementary physics involved. > > > > I am sure you and your sort have forgotten what you may perhaps have learnt about Newtonian equations in middle school about physics, what with the e=mcc=hv expensive and disastrous nonsenses. > > > > > > Problem is, that when e=mcc abuse of reason and science is done, institutions like MIT go sadly astray. > > As we can see from the following in my facebook timeline from one MIT guy whose school has gone biotech! > > Well what to do, if they follow the wrong rocket science approach, they are bound to fail. > I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. It has > nothing to do with the simple Newtonian equations that yield the result > I described. > > Sylvia. You descrbe nothing but your incompetence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 06:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ubvjh3$2cb9$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #878614 |
On 8/6/2023 11:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. Hehe :) God these Cro-magnons.. Again! How absurd a statement that can be,.. "Energy-mass equivalence"!.. Where did you get that from. Your two-bit prof in undergrad school? Mass is not equivalent to energy. You think you can tie in something like a feature of light and still keep the two "equivalent"? Heh. Speed of light is NOT a number. It is the _speed_ of _light_ first, and then only if you want to quantify it for your conjectures, you measure it and give a number to it. In all other scenarios, i.e. outside your skulls, it is the speed of light, not just a number. If one can be DERIVED from the other, this doesn't mean the two are equivalent. Jesus. Fucking Cro-Magnons again. Especially the "Bitches of USA" among them. And they keep themselves _composed_ for us too :-( Ridiculous pieces of shit :( Not once, not twice, but all along one's fucking life one has to deal with these morons. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 07:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ubvjlq$2el4$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #879322 |
On 8/21/2023 6:58 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 8/6/2023 11:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. > > > Hehe :) God these Cro-magnons.. Again! > > How absurd a statement that can be,.. "Energy-mass equivalence"!.. > > Where did you get that from. Your two-bit prof in undergrad school? Mass > is not equivalent to energy. You think you can tie in something like a > feature of light and still keep the two "equivalent"? Heh. Speed of > light is NOT a number. It is the _speed_ of _light_ first, and then only > if you want to quantify it for your conjectures, you measure it and give > a number to it. In all other scenarios, i.e. outside your skulls, it is > the speed of light, not just a number. > > If one can be DERIVED from the other, this doesn't mean the two are > equivalent. Jesus. > > Fucking Cro-Magnons again. Especially the "Bitches of USA" among them. > > And they keep themselves _composed_ for us too :-( Ridiculous pieces of > shit :( > > Not once, not twice, but all along one's fucking life one has to deal > with these morons. > > > > Sorry I've perhaps got other reasons as well to be pissed. (I missed the alarm clock! So called in. But I'll get some good work done at home instead of reading these crap loads of nothing. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 05:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uc23u8$dbov$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #879323 |
On 8/21/2023 7:00 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 8/21/2023 6:58 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 8/6/2023 11:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. >> > > Sorry I've perhaps got other reasons as well to be pissed. Or perhaps I can make a concise form of the gist of what I said for posterity. Three examples: Distance is not "equivalent" to time. A factor of speed is tied in the relation it has with time, which cannot be taken as just a number. Momentum is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of speed is tied in the relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number. Kinetic energy is not "equivalent" to momentum. An additional factor of speed is tied in the relation it has with momentum, which cannot be taken as just a number. And likewise, energy is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of not just speed of light, but a second degree speed of light, is tied in the relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number, regardless of the latter seemingly exhibiting the same value in measurements. In none of the statements above, you should mistake such realities with the "math" expressions of them in your head. Math has nothing to do with those realities. They are facts of nature, in and of themselves, with or without the tools of math at your disposal. Don't get them mixed up with the math form of their expressions you see on the paper! If someone is using the phrase, "energy-mass equivalence", he is just blabbering nonsense. He is trashing the existence of light and the feature of speed of it two times over. How can one trash that so easily? A Cro-Magnon human obviously can! But so what? Who cares? Cause human, Modern Human, does not trash the light and its speed in that relationship that energy and mass have with each other, TWO TIMES OVER. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10acbd57-bede-402d-8760-2c0324c43c9bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #879364 |
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 20:50:55 UTC+10, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 8/21/2023 7:00 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > > On 8/21/2023 6:58 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > >> On 8/6/2023 11:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. > >> > > > > Sorry I've perhaps got other reasons as well to be pissed. > Or perhaps I can make a concise form of the gist of what I said for > posterity. > > Three examples: > > Distance is not "equivalent" to time. A factor of speed is tied in the > relation it has with time, which cannot be taken as just a number. > > Momentum is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of speed is tied in the > relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number. > > Kinetic energy is not "equivalent" to momentum. An additional factor of > speed is tied in the relation it has with momentum, which cannot be > taken as just a number. > > And likewise, energy is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of not just > speed of light, but a second degree speed of light, is tied in the > relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number, > regardless of the latter seemingly exhibiting the same value in > measurements. > > In none of the statements above, you should mistake such realities with > the "math" expressions of them in your head. Math has nothing to do with > those realities. They are facts of nature, in and of themselves, with or > without the tools of math at your disposal. Don't get them mixed up with > the math form of their expressions you see on the paper! > > If someone is using the phrase, "energy-mass equivalence", he is just > blabbering nonsense. He is trashing the existence of light and the > feature of speed of it two times over. How can one trash that so easily? > > A Cro-Magnon human obviously can! But so what? Who cares? Cause human, > Modern Human, does not trash the light and its speed in that > relationship that energy and mass have with each other, TWO TIMES OVER. > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com Esteemed fools - the whodumbos, that is - have no clue about the basic meaning of algebra, although they apply it for their nefarious purposes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89ecdaf9-9654-4bc8-8dbc-500225dbd782n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #879389 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:42:06 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 20:50:55 UTC+10, Physfitfreak wrote: > > On 8/21/2023 7:00 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > > > On 8/21/2023 6:58 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > > >> On 8/6/2023 11:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>> I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. > > >> > > > > > > Sorry I've perhaps got other reasons as well to be pissed. > > Or perhaps I can make a concise form of the gist of what I said for > > posterity. > > > > Three examples: > > > > Distance is not "equivalent" to time. A factor of speed is tied in the > > relation it has with time, which cannot be taken as just a number. > > > > Momentum is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of speed is tied in the > > relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number. > > > > Kinetic energy is not "equivalent" to momentum. An additional factor of > > speed is tied in the relation it has with momentum, which cannot be > > taken as just a number. > > > > And likewise, energy is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of not just > > speed of light, but a second degree speed of light, is tied in the > > relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number, > > regardless of the latter seemingly exhibiting the same value in > > measurements. > > > > In none of the statements above, you should mistake such realities with > > the "math" expressions of them in your head. Math has nothing to do with > > those realities. They are facts of nature, in and of themselves, with or > > without the tools of math at your disposal. Don't get them mixed up with > > the math form of their expressions you see on the paper! > > > > If someone is using the phrase, "energy-mass equivalence", he is just > > blabbering nonsense. He is trashing the existence of light and the > > feature of speed of it two times over. How can one trash that so easily? > > > > A Cro-Magnon human obviously can! But so what? Who cares? Cause human, > > Modern Human, does not trash the light and its speed in that > > relationship that energy and mass have with each other, TWO TIMES OVER. > > -- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > www.avast.com > Esteemed fools - the whodumbos, that is - have no clue about the basic meaning of algebra, although they apply it for their nefarious purposes. "Whodumbo" is kind of not enough of a word, guy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-01 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcc8bd80-57ff-49ca-ad74-dbf3f5cd0c9fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #879895 |
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:31:19 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:42:06 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 20:50:55 UTC+10, Physfitfreak wrote: > > > On 8/21/2023 7:00 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2023 6:58 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: > > > >> On 8/6/2023 11:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>> I don't know why you'd bring up energy-mass equivalence here. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Sorry I've perhaps got other reasons as well to be pissed. > > > Or perhaps I can make a concise form of the gist of what I said for > > > posterity. > > > > > > Three examples: > > > > > > Distance is not "equivalent" to time. A factor of speed is tied in the > > > relation it has with time, which cannot be taken as just a number. > > > > > > Momentum is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of speed is tied in the > > > relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number. > > > > > > Kinetic energy is not "equivalent" to momentum. An additional factor of > > > speed is tied in the relation it has with momentum, which cannot be > > > taken as just a number. > > > > > > And likewise, energy is not "equivalent" to mass. A factor of not just > > > speed of light, but a second degree speed of light, is tied in the > > > relation it has with mass, which cannot be taken as just a number, > > > regardless of the latter seemingly exhibiting the same value in > > > measurements. > > > > > > In none of the statements above, you should mistake such realities with > > > the "math" expressions of them in your head. Math has nothing to do with > > > those realities. They are facts of nature, in and of themselves, with or > > > without the tools of math at your disposal. Don't get them mixed up with > > > the math form of their expressions you see on the paper! > > > > > > If someone is using the phrase, "energy-mass equivalence", he is just > > > blabbering nonsense. He is trashing the existence of light and the > > > feature of speed of it two times over. How can one trash that so easily? > > > > > > A Cro-Magnon human obviously can! But so what? Who cares? Cause human, > > > Modern Human, does not trash the light and its speed in that > > > relationship that energy and mass have with each other, TWO TIMES OVER. > > > -- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > > www.avast.com > > Esteemed fools - the whodumbos, that is - have no clue about the basic meaning of algebra, although they apply it for their nefarious purposes. > "Whodumbo" is kind of not enough of a word, guy. "You see, it means..." That's "leading argumentation", even if the verbal definition were to be correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web