Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #837441 > unrolled thread

Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-04 20:10 -0800
    Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 09:46 -0800
      Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 13:26 -0800
        Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 13:38 -0800
    Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 13:36 -0800
      Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 13:46 -0800
        Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 14:13 -0800
          Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 15:11 -0800
          Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-05 19:50 -0500
            Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 18:09 -0800
        Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 14:47 -0800
    Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-12-06 11:20 +1100
      Celebrate our differences. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-12-05 17:00 -0800
        Re: Celebrate our differences. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 18:03 -0800
          Celebrate our differences. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-12-05 21:24 -0800
            Re: Celebrate our differences. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 23:22 -0800
              Re: Celebrate our differences. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 23:36 -0800
      Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 18:01 -0800
        Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-12-06 22:50 +1100
          Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 04:55 -0800
            Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-06 14:18 -0500
          Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 09:05 -0600
            Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-06 14:25 -0500
            Arindam Banerjee fails to sell a dime of his snake oil to anyone. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-12-06 13:38 -0800
              Re: Arindam Banerjee fails to sell a dime of his snake oil to anyone. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 16:23 -0600
                Re: Arindam Banerjee fails to sell a dime of his snake oil to anyone. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 14:50 -0800
                Might as well insist that the earth stop spinning. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-12-06 15:10 -0800
                  Re: Might as well insist that the earth stop spinning. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-07 00:09 -0800
            Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 14:05 -0800
            Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 14:31 -0800
          Arindam Banerjee won't/can't convince anyone but himself. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-12-06 13:34 -0800
            Re: Arindam Banerjee won't/can't convince anyone but himself. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 15:36 -0800
              Re: Arindam Banerjee won't/can't convince anyone but himself. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 18:12 -0800
                Re: Arindam Banerjee won't/can't convince anyone but himself. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2021-12-07 05:37 -0800
                  Re: Arindam Banerjee won't/can't convince anyone but himself. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-12-07 09:42 -0500
    Re: Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 15:38 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#837441 — Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?

The subject line:
"Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?"
is pertinent for this ng.

Not that there are any physicists here, any more.
Nevertheless...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#837458

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> The subject line: 
> "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> is pertinent for this ng. 
> 
> Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> Nevertheless...

You are unable to answer this question because you don't know any physics yourself... as in "zero" knowledge!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837470

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 04:46:48 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > The subject line: 
> > "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> > is pertinent for this ng. 
> > 
> > Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> > Nevertheless...
> You are unable to answer this question because you don't know any physics yourself... as in "zero" knowledge!

Squeak on, squeak on...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837472

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:26:26 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 04:46:48 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > The subject line: 
> > > "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> > > is pertinent for this ng. 
> > > 
> > > Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> > > Nevertheless... 

> > You are unable to answer this question because you don't know any physics yourself... as in "zero" knowledge!

> Squeak on, squeak on...

And so I shall, until, finally, you realize just how uneducated you are in physics. You should be thoroughly embarrassed... but then again, as always, you just don't know what you don't know!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837471

On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 15:10:26 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> The subject line: 
> "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> is pertinent for this ng. 
> 
> Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> Nevertheless...

The answer is a resounding NO.

New physics in brief:
e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
c(v)=c+v
The Lorenz force does not have areaction.
aether fills the infinite universe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837473

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:36:20 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 15:10:26 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > The subject line: 
> > "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> > is pertinent for this ng. 
> > 
> > Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> > Nevertheless...
> The answer is a resounding NO. 
> 
> New physics in brief: 
> e=0.5mvvN(N-k) 
> c(v)=c+v 
> The Lorenz force does not have areaction. 
> aether fills the infinite universe.

Whence:
All forces are electrical in nature.
The cores of stars are cold.
There is no such thing as fusion, but there is fission of deuterium releasing enormous energies.
Stars are dark when they lose their hydrogen cover.
They regain it when they enter a nebula.

Faster than light speeds are easily possible with a new class of electric motors.
They will make possible very fast air travel or rather space travel near Earth.

Climate turmoil is caused by jet engines belching out CO2 at 10000m. It takes a long time to come down. Causes greenhouse effect.

The surplus energy from renewables to be converted locally to hydrogen by electrolysis and piped in a global network, will shatter the silly law of conservation of energy.

Humanity's destination is outer space. There has to be expansion or there will be continuous contraction with nuch misery.  

So whatever I write must be noted seriously.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837476

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:46:14 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:36:20 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 15:10:26 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > > The subject line: 
> > > "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> > > is pertinent for this ng. 
> > > 
> > > Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> > > Nevertheless... 
> > The answer is a resounding NO. 
> > 
> > New physics in brief: 
> > e=0.5mvvN(N-k) 
> > c(v)=c+v 
> > The Lorenz force does not have areaction. 
> > aether fills the infinite universe.
> Whence: 
> All forces are electrical in nature. 
> The cores of stars are cold. 
> There is no such thing as fusion, but there is fission of deuterium releasing enormous energies. 
> Stars are dark when they lose their hydrogen cover. 
> They regain it when they enter a nebula. 
> 
> Faster than light speeds are easily possible with a new class of electric motors. 
> They will make possible very fast air travel or rather space travel near Earth. 
> 
> Climate turmoil is caused by jet engines belching out CO2 at 10000m. It takes a long time to come down. Causes greenhouse effect. 
> 
> The surplus energy from renewables to be converted locally to hydrogen by electrolysis and piped in a global network, will shatter the silly law of conservation of energy. 
> 
> Humanity's destination is outer space. There has to be expansion or there will be continuous contraction with nuch misery. 
> 
> So whatever I write must be noted seriously.

It is up to the students of physics, everywhere, to take a stand.
They must tell their teachers and professors to repeat my experiments, understand the theories involved, as opposed to ignoring me and what I do.
If they do not, they will do the greatest disservice to science and humanity.  The little crumbs they now get will become smaller in quantity, till they vanish into ridicule, if they do not follow their course as scientists.

****************


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
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ


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


Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837483

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 09:13:45 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:46:14 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:36:20 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 15:10:26 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > > > The subject line: 
> > > > "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> > > > is pertinent for this ng. 
> > > > 
> > > > Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> > > > Nevertheless... 
> > > The answer is a resounding NO. 

Considerations of Eurocentric-Occidental-antiEast racism and bigotry are old-fashioned, so give them up instead of wrapping these dead things in multiple layers of hypocrisy, like the linen for dead stuffed bodies known as mummies.
> > > 
> > > New physics in brief: 
> > > e=0.5mvvN(N-k) 
> > > c(v)=c+v 
> > > The Lorenz force does not have areaction. 
> > > aether fills the infinite universe. 
> > Whence: 
> > All forces are electrical in nature. 
> > The cores of stars are cold. 
> > There is no such thing as fusion, but there is fission of deuterium releasing enormous energies. 
> > Stars are dark when they lose their hydrogen cover. 
> > They regain it when they enter a nebula. 
> > 
> > Faster than light speeds are easily possible with a new class of electric motors. 
> > They will make possible very fast air travel or rather space travel near Earth. 
> > 
> > Climate turmoil is caused by jet engines belching out CO2 at 10000m. It takes a long time to come down. Causes greenhouse effect. 
> > 
> > The surplus energy from renewables to be converted locally to hydrogen by electrolysis and piped in a global network, will shatter the silly law of conservation of energy. 
> > 
> > Humanity's destination is outer space. There has to be expansion or there will be continuous contraction with nuch misery. 
> > 
> > So whatever I write must be noted seriously.
> It is up to the students of physics, everywhere, to take a stand. 
> They must tell their teachers and professors to repeat my experiments, understand the theories involved, as opposed to ignoring me and what I do. 
> If they do not, they will do the greatest disservice to science and humanity. The little crumbs they now get will become smaller in quantity, till they vanish into ridicule, if they do not follow their course as scientists. 
> 
> **************** 
> 
> 
> 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 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ 
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837494

On 12/5/2021 5:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:46:14 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:36:20 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 15:10:26 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> The subject line:
>>>> "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?"
>>>> is pertinent for this ng.

If you EVER want to be taken seriously by any physicists, you are going 
to have to learn how to write and submit a science paper on your 
purported "discoveries". You'll also need to be able to measure and 
demonstrate unambiguously your "discoveries".  A good example of how NOT 
to do that is your video of the crashing "armature" where there are no 
measurements and the video certainly does not show an unambiguous 
difference in the action of the "armature" with and without an applied 
current.  Of course you'll never do so, so you'll continue to be ignored 
by physicists, as it should be.
>>>>
>>>> Not that there are any physicists here, any more.

Right. Cranks like yourself drove nearly all of them away.

>>> New physics in brief:

Assertions without demonstrated experimental results aren't "physics".
"It's true because I say so!" is what cranks like Plutonium claim, not 
what actual scientists say.

>>> e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
>>> c(v)=c+v
>>> The Lorenz force does not have areaction.
>>> aether fills the infinite universe.
>> Whence:
>> All forces are electrical in nature.
>> The cores of stars are cold.
>> There is no such thing as fusion, but there is fission of deuterium releasing enormous energies.
>> Stars are dark when they lose their hydrogen cover.
>> They regain it when they enter a nebula.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  You'll need to 
get busy coming up with your extraordinary evidence and write some 
decent papers if you don't want to get ignored to death.

>> So whatever I write must be noted seriously.

Only good peer reviewed science papers will ever be noted seriously.
What you babble here will be seen by very few. Half of them cranks, the 
other half kookwatchers like myself. Almost no physicists.
> 
> It is up to the students of physics, everywhere, to take a stand.

Why? The current system works quite well.

> They must tell their teachers and professors to repeat my experiments, understand the theories involved, as opposed to ignoring me and what I do.

So start writing the scientific papers with all the evidence supporting 
your claims!  Oh, you don't have any evidence?  Oh well, you will have 
to produce that first...if you can...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837500

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 11:50:39 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2021 5:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:46:14 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> >> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 08:36:20 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> >>> On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 15:10:26 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> >>>> The subject line: 
> >>>> "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> >>>> is pertinent for this ng.
> If you EVER want to be taken seriously by any physicists, 

None around.  The last one, of Indian origin, has long gone.  
As the entire physics establishment is corrupt to the core, one has to take to social media, and then to business and politics to make the new physics of mine available.
Bypass the frauds in academia and other fat institutions.
Now that is the strategy to follow.
When young people tell their physics professors to take a hike, only then there will be lasting change - with terrific changes to the curriculum.

- snip -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837479

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:46:14 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:

> Whence: 
> All forces are electrical in nature. 
> The cores of stars are cold. 
> There is no such thing as fusion, but there is fission of deuterium releasing enormous energies. 
> Stars are dark when they lose their hydrogen cover. 
> They regain it when they enter a nebula. 

I rest my case.

You know virtually nothing about actual physics since all 5 of these claims are very, very incorrect! You cannot possibly provide evidence in support of any of them!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837488

On 05-Dec-21 3:10 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> The subject line:
> "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?"
> is pertinent for this ng.
> 
> Not that there are any physicists here, any more.
> Nevertheless...
> 

You appear to have misstated your question.

The correct statement of your question is:

"Do physicists know enough physics to convince you that you're wrong in 
the face of your delusions of superiority?"

The answer, of course, is "No," since no amount of knowledge will suffice.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837496 — Celebrate our differences.

Physicists can't converse with ordinary people,
& vice versa.

Everything starts with an assumption in this
god damn mysterious world, full of ignorance.

The (rich) plumber is going to make a different 
assumption then would the (poor) cosmologist.

Both have their reasons, valid reasons,
to think as they do.

Celebrate our differences.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837499 — Re: Celebrate our differences.

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 12:01:01 UTC+11, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Physicists can't converse with ordinary people, 
> & vice versa. 

They jolly well can.  If only to show what idiots they are with their silly notions.
> 
> Everything starts with an assumption in this 
> god damn mysterious world, full of ignorance. 

No, science is about facts and what to make of them.
See, you are wrong from the very beginning.

> 
> The (rich) plumber is going to make a different 
> assumption then would the (poor) cosmologist. 
> 
> Both have their reasons, valid reasons, 
> to think as they do. 
> 
> Celebrate our differences.

Throw out e=mcc=hv

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837508 — Celebrate our differences.

You ( Arindam Banerjee ) replied ( to me ):
> > Celebrate our differences.
> 
> Throw out e=mcc=hv

Cool, do it.

Just don't imply that I should do it too;
that'd be utterly ridiculous, and you know it !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837511 — Re: Celebrate our differences.

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 16:25:17 UTC+11, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Arindam Banerjee ) replied ( to me ):
> > > Celebrate our differences. 
> > 
> > Throw out e=mcc=hv
> Cool, do it. 
> 
> Just don't imply that I should do it too; 

I ask all students of physics to do that.

> that'd be utterly ridiculous, and you know it !

Yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837512 — Re: Celebrate our differences.

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 18:23:00 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 16:25:17 UTC+11, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: 
> > You ( Arindam Banerjee ) replied ( to me ): 
> > > > Celebrate our differences. 
> > > 
> > > Throw out e=mcc=hv 
> > Cool, do it. 
Done it long ago, back in 1999 when I worked out e=0.5mVV(N-k)N as the energy created and destroyed in all physical interactions.
> > 
> > Just don't imply that I should do it too;
> I ask all students of physics to do that.
> > that'd be utterly ridiculous, and you know it !
> Yes.
I mean, while it will not be ridiculous, but unexpected for the brainwashed to change their opinions so widely held, I know that will not happen, so the yes above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837498

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 11:20:28 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 05-Dec-21 3:10 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > The subject line: 
> > "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> > is pertinent for this ng. 
> > 
> > Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> > Nevertheless... 
> >
> You appear to have misstated your question. 
> 
> The correct statement of your question is: 
> 
> "Do physicists know enough physics to convince you that you're wrong in 
> the face of your delusions of superiority?" 

Obviously, they do not, for they do not study what I write and do not repeat my experiments.

If they did study and think about my physics they could know how to say where it is wrong on SCIENTIFIC grounds.

If they were not fakes they could easily reproduce my experiments - with my involvement - and then show where I went wrong.

However, all they do is to ignore and attack me on personal grounds.

I hope that all sensible new students of physics will shun such unscientific attitudes.
If they want to be considered scientific as opposed to dogmatic, then they should read all I have written and do the experiments that vindicate them.


> The answer, of course, is "No," since no amount of knowledge will suffice. 

Agreed - one cannot get anything positive out of lazy liars, con-persons, opportunistic careerists, showmen, etc. posing as scientists in order to feed from the trough.
However one must have hope and faith in the young people, and the unborn.

So I have to do better and better with my experiments.  

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee


> 
> Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837516

On 06-Dec-21 1:01 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 11:20:28 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 05-Dec-21 3:10 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> The subject line:
>>> "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?"
>>> is pertinent for this ng.
>>>
>>> Not that there are any physicists here, any more.
>>> Nevertheless...
>>>
>> You appear to have misstated your question.
>>
>> The correct statement of your question is:
>>
>> "Do physicists know enough physics to convince you that you're wrong in
>> the face of your delusions of superiority?"
> 
> Obviously, they do not, for they do not study what I write and do not repeat my experiments.

Yes, we've seen your experiments, and they're so badly done that the 
results are entirely unconvincing to anyone except you. The expectation 
is that anyone who took the trouble to replicate your experiments 
properly would get results that are consistent with the current 
understanding of physics, making the whole exercise a complete waste of 
time and effort.

> 
> If they did study and think about my physics they could know how to say where it is wrong on SCIENTIFIC grounds.
> 
> If they were not fakes they could easily reproduce my experiments - with my involvement - and then show where I went wrong.

Why should they when you cannot even bother to do the experiments properly?

> 
> However, all they do is to ignore and attack me on personal grounds.
> 
> I hope that all sensible new students of physics will shun such unscientific attitudes.
> If they want to be considered scientific as opposed to dogmatic, then they should read all I have written and do the experiments that vindicate them.
> 

Sensible students will realise the truth of what I've written above, and 
write you off as a crank.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837517

On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 22:50:55 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 06-Dec-21 1:01 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 11:20:28 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 05-Dec-21 3:10 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> >>> The subject line: 
> >>> "Do physicists know enough physics to correct their ridiculous errors?" 
> >>> is pertinent for this ng. 
> >>> 
> >>> Not that there are any physicists here, any more. 
> >>> Nevertheless... 
> >>> 
> >> You appear to have misstated your question. 
> >> 
> >> The correct statement of your question is: 
> >> 
> >> "Do physicists know enough physics to convince you that you're wrong in 
> >> the face of your delusions of superiority?" 
> > 
> > Obviously, they do not, for they do not study what I write and do not repeat my experiments.
> Yes, we've seen your experiments, and they're so badly done that the 
> results are entirely unconvincing to anyone except you.


That is a black lie.
You are a shameless liar.


 Tuhe expectation 
> is that anyone who took the trouble to replicate your experiments 
> properly would get results that are consistent with the current 
> understanding of physics, making the whole exercise a complete waste of 
> time and effort.

So no one will take any trouble to repeat my experiments on the most specious of unscientific grounds.
No matter, it is always possible to improve upon what I have done. And I have done just that, and will do better still. Nothing new to show in the theoretical sense, for the new results corroborate past work. 
Point is, I have exposed the hollowness of the racist and bigoted occidentalists. 
That is useful .
So they are not to be taken seriously as they simply lie.
Fortunately, the media and politicians and business worlds exist. With improved results shown they cannot but show interest. If not in the West, then in the East.
.

> > 
> > If they did study and think about my physics they could know how to say where it is wrong on SCIENTIFIC grounds. 
> > 
> > If they were not fakes they could easily reproduce my experiments - with my involvement - and then show where I went wrong.
> Why should they when you cannot even bother to do the experiments properly?

I have done them properly.
They have been done meticulously following the most rigorous scientific method, very openly, with full detailed analysis and explanations. True one needs a minimum intelligence to follow them. Those lacking that, will find it easy to dismiss when the facts do not suit their stakes.

Of course anything can be done better, and that is what I gave been doing since.
I expected better than this, from those calling themselves scientific.
One has to face reverses and disillusionment, but this is beyond expectations!
Racism and bigotry are so deep, ideals and goals actually. 

Besides, the theories of mine are new and testing has to be done on the lines indicated. 
To ignore new theories that continue the tried theories is criminal.
Certainly I am a victim.
Good that I can make it clear with online media.
> > 
> > However, all they do is to ignore and attack me on personal grounds. 
> > 
> > I hope that all sensible new students of physics will shun such unscientific attitudes. 
> > If they want to be considered scientific as opposed to dogmatic, then they should read all I have written and do the experiments that vindicate them. 
> >
> Sensible students will realise the truth of what I've written above, and 
> write you off as a crank. 

No, if they ignore new approaches that are rigorously scientific,  they will be hypocrites, set to become opportunistic careerists by sucking up. That strategy may not pay. Those at the vanguard   of new  discoveries reap the benefits, or at least have the satisfaction of doing the right thing. Not all are hideously shameless and hypocritical, but here I could be mistaken. Unethical education where truth does not matter seems to be a fashion. Sure sign of degeneracy. Better check that, I warn.

Students can repeat my experiments on their own. It is not difficult nor expensive. If they are too lazy and cowardly, shame on them. With shameless teachers, teaching blind dogma, they may be lobotomized beyond repair.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> 
> Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web