Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #889311 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kami <f00@0f0.00f> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-20 18:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-10-13 07:30 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
do you believe we can quantize gravity? kami <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-09-20 18:10 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-09-20 22:54 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-09-21 07:50 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kami <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-09-22 05:52 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-09-22 13:08 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-09-23 05:16 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2024-09-21 10:14 +0800
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kami <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-09-22 05:52 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? x <x@x.org> - 2024-09-24 21:43 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 06:57 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 08:48 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 09:28 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 09:53 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 10:06 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 11:06 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 11:36 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 11:41 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-12 06:53 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 20:41 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-12 14:22 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 00:22 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-12 17:54 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 07:31 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 10:03 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-13 05:59 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 19:13 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-13 13:00 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-14 09:15 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-14 05:39 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-14 20:04 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-14 13:40 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-14 21:42 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-14 15:29 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-15 06:37 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-15 06:44 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-10-19 02:45 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-19 13:42 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-22 06:01 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-25 18:52 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-25 21:02 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-25 14:23 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-25 22:48 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-19 06:31 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-14 22:18 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-14 17:15 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-15 04:25 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-15 07:06 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-16 23:02 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-16 16:56 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-10-17 03:22 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-17 06:48 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-15 23:15 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-16 02:10 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-15 20:42 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-17 23:52 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-17 17:04 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-17 17:38 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-18 02:42 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-17 20:53 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-18 20:47 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-18 16:48 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-19 01:27 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-19 06:36 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-21 02:55 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-20 20:20 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-21 03:49 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-21 07:14 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-21 21:18 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-21 14:49 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-21 22:33 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-21 16:19 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-22 02:39 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-21 20:43 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-25 22:51 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-25 16:55 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-26 10:18 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-25 18:50 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 21:38 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-12 15:30 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 00:19 +0000
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-12 17:56 -0700
Re: do you believe we can quantize gravity? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 07:30 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-25 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vretuk-qjc31.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889770 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:52:44 +0000, kazu wrote: > >> Bertietaylor wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:42:30 +0000, kazu wrote: >>> >>>> bertie, are you for real??? >>> >>> As real as celestial cyberdogs barking for the Sarvadaman Shriman >>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of >>> all time >>> and sole god among lotsa devils, can get. >>> >>> Woof-woof >>> >>> Bertietaylor >> >> >> ok, does he have a linkedin account? i dont want to search >> because linkedin displays analytics. > > No but he has a Facebook account. And a google email. Also a name, face, > address. He is very easy to contact. Thousands know him although we two > are his only You are Arindam, you deluionally insane crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-25 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fe696e0812f187e9d08ed158a6dd5789@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889771 |
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:23:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:52:44 +0000, kazu wrote: >> >>> Bertietaylor wrote: >>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:42:30 +0000, kazu wrote: >>>> >>>>> bertie, are you for real??? >>>> >>>> As real as celestial cyberdogs barking for the Sarvadaman Shriman >>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of >>>> all time >>>> and sole god among lotsa devils, can get. >>>> >>>> Woof-woof >>>> >>>> Bertietaylor >>> >>> >>> ok, does he have a linkedin account? i dont want to search >>> because linkedin displays analytics. >> >> No but he has a Facebook account. And a google email. Also a name, face, >> address. He is very easy to contact. Thousands know him although we two >> are his only > > You are Arindam, you deluionally insane crackpot. You are an raving imbecile, Penisnino. Woof-woof What fools these apes be! Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-19 06:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8vocuk-6aua.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889671 |
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:44:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > <snip old crap> >> You have no math, Arindam, never had, never will because you are just a >> penis obsessed, arm waving crackpot. > > tch tch, Penisnino should cool down, chant e-mcc at least 300000000 > times on his rosary. The penis obsessed, multiple personality crakpot should seek help for his delusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-14 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3eeda91637960d56227668bb451ce488@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889626 |
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >> >>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>> >>> >>> <snip old crap> >>> >>>>> Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>> anything new? >>>> >>>> Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight. >>> >>> Nothing new there whatsoever. >> >> Keep on lying. >>> >>>> It is a new design >>>> rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>> time. >>> >>> Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings. >> >> Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots! > > Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power > source? > > Yes, nothing new there. > > Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails? > > Yes, nothing new there. > > Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the > same equations of all other railguns since 1917? > > No, nothing new there. > > Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been > built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns. Different designs, fool. Not one of them could provide enough momentum for inertia violation the way Arindam's new design does. > > You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot. Lies. They are all given in detail online. Anyone can follow the links. > > In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot? Proved reaction less. Thus completing Arindam's PhD thesis at RMIT Melbourne not that he wants anything from them any more. Enough satisfaction to have proved them and the physics world wrong. Anyway to give the P* its due that one now does say that Arindam did indeed make a working model of a railgun. This goes against what the final viva committee at RMIT thought which thought was repeated in this newsgroup by whodat, Moroney, Alsing, etc. The viva committee said that Arindam did NOT make a working model of a railgun so his thesis that it was performing reactionlessly (thus violating Newtonian laws) was to be dismissed. Some small advance here, thus - despite the kicking and screaming of the racist bigots pursuing age-old suppression tactics. What fools these apes be! Woof-woof Bertietaylor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-14 17:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lqo0uk-7efc2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889628 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>> >>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> <snip old crap> >>>> >>>>>> Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>>> anything new? >>>>> >>>>> Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight. >>>> >>>> Nothing new there whatsoever. >>> >>> Keep on lying. >>>> >>>>> It is a new design >>>>> rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>> time. >>>> >>>> Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings. >>> >>> Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots! >> >> Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >> source? >> >> Yes, nothing new there. >> >> Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails? >> >> Yes, nothing new there. >> >> Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the >> same equations of all other railguns since 1917? >> >> No, nothing new there. >> >> Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been >> built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns. > > Different designs, fool. Not one of them could provide enough momentum > for inertia violation the way Arindam's new design does. What are the force equations for this different design and where is the data analysis that shows them to be true, crackpot. What exactly is different about this design, crackpot? >> >> You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot. > > Lies. They are all given in detail online. Anyone can follow the links. I have found no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new in any of your links, crackpot. >> >> In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot? > > Proved reaction less. Proved by what since you have no data, no analysis, no math in any of your posts, i.e. nothing but videos of your feet crackpot. > Thus completing Arindam's PhD thesis at RMIT Melbourne not that he > wants anything from them any more. You mean the thesis that got you removed from the PhD program? If your written thesis was as laughable as your videos, it is no wonder you were removed crackpot. > > Enough satisfaction to have proved them and the physics world wrong. > > Anyway to give the P* its due that one now does say that Arindam did > indeed make a working model of a railgun. This goes against what the > final viva committee at RMIT thought which thought was repeated in this > newsgroup by whodat, Moroney, Alsing, etc. The viva committee said that > Arindam did NOT make a working model of a railgun so his thesis that it > was performing reactionlessly (thus violating Newtonian laws) was to be > dismissed. Of course it was dismissed and it still would be dismissed as videos of your feet prove nothing other than you have bad taste in footwear crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-15 04:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fca3349b925fcdfa219cd74e9ef20b9d@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889632 |
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 0:15:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >> >>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <snip old crap> >>>>> >>>>>>> Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>>>> anything new? >>>>>> >>>>>> Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing new there whatsoever. >>>> >>>> Keep on lying. >>>>> >>>>>> It is a new design >>>>>> rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings. Arindam has presented the most powerful proofs using video evidence, lying fool. >>>> >>>> Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots! >>> >>> Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >>> source? >>> >>> Yes, nothing new there. The DC source is only 12 volts. Show another rail gun which accelerates a 4000gm bullet and weighs 8 Kg. The weight of bullet to weight of gun including power supply is a few orders of magnitude less than normal guns let alone rail guns. That ratio is new. >>> >>> Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails? >>> >>> Yes, nothing new there. New thing is the huge heaviness of the armature or bullet with respect to the gun and its showing how it moves over the rails on a frame by frame basis. Penisnino, show the video of ANY gun where the movement of the bullet within the barrel or on rails is videoed on a frame by frame basis. As you cannot all you can do is insult Arindam by calling him names. The smallness of your sort is well known. While disgusting it is not surprising. >>> >>> Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the >>> same equations of all other railguns since 1917? >>> >>> No, nothing new there. >>> >>> Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been >>> built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns. >> >> Different designs, fool. Not one of them could provide enough momentum >> for inertia violation the way Arindam's new design does. > > What are the force equations for this different design and where is the > data analysis that shows them to be true, crackpot. > > What exactly is different about this design, crackpot? > >>> >>> You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot. >> >> Lies. They are all given in detail online. Anyone can follow the links. > > I have found no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new in any of > your links, crackpot. > >>> >>> In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot? >> >> Proved reaction less. > > Proved by what since you have no data, no analysis, no math in any of > your posts, i.e. nothing but videos of your feet crackpot. > >> Thus completing Arindam's PhD thesis at RMIT Melbourne not that he >> wants anything from them any more. > > You mean the thesis that got you removed from the PhD program? > > If your written thesis was as laughable as your videos, it is no wonder > you were removed crackpot. > >> >> Enough satisfaction to have proved them and the physics world wrong. >> >> Anyway to give the P* its due that one now does say that Arindam did >> indeed make a working model of a railgun. This goes against what the >> final viva committee at RMIT thought which thought was repeated in this >> newsgroup by whodat, Moroney, Alsing, etc. The viva committee said that >> Arindam did NOT make a working model of a railgun so his thesis that it >> was performing reactionlessly (thus violating Newtonian laws) was to be >> dismissed. > > Of course it was dismissed and it still would be dismissed as videos of > your feet prove nothing other than you have bad taste in footwear > crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-15 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <og92uk-gsde2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889635 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 0:15:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>> >>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip old crap> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>>>>> anything new? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing new there whatsoever. >>>>> >>>>> Keep on lying. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a new design >>>>>>> rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings. > > Arindam has presented the most powerful proofs using video evidence, > lying fool. >>>>> >>>>> Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots! >>>> >>>> Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >>>> source? >>>> >>>> Yes, nothing new there. > > The DC source is only 12 volts. Show another rail gun which accelerates > a 4000gm bullet and weighs 8 Kg. > > The weight of bullet to weight of gun including power supply is a few > orders of magnitude less than normal guns let alone rail guns. > > That ratio is new. To claim anything new, you have to show that your railgun does not follow the well known equations for railguns, crackpot. Since you have no data, no analysis and no error bars, you have nothing crackpot. >>>> >>>> Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails? >>>> >>>> Yes, nothing new there. > > New thing is the huge heaviness of the armature or bullet with respect > to the gun and its showing how it moves over the rails on a frame by > frame basis. A railgun is a direct current homopolar linear motor designed for high acceleration and thus high velocity. > Penisnino, show the video of ANY gun where the movement of the bullet > within the barrel or on rails is videoed on a frame by frame basis. Since your "railgun" operates at low acceleration and low velocity, it is not a railgun by definition and nothing more than a low speed linear motor. <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-16 23:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4c50b076e7a95dce2a6cc4d7809bd316@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889642 |
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:06:50 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 0:15:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >> >>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip old crap> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>>>>>> anything new? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing new there whatsoever. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keep on lying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a new design >>>>>>>> rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings. >> >> Arindam has presented the most powerful proofs using video evidence, >> lying fool. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots! >>>>> >>>>> Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >>>>> source? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, nothing new there. >> >> The DC source is only 12 volts. Show another rail gun which accelerates >> a 4000gm bullet and weighs 8 Kg. >> >> The weight of bullet to weight of gun including power supply is a few >> orders of magnitude less than normal guns let alone rail guns. >> >> That ratio is new. > > To claim anything new, you have to show that your railgun does not > follow the well known equations for railguns, crackpot. No reason for Arindam to educate fools and scoundrels. His invention works unlike what was said to deprive him of his PhD. It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that Arindam had conceived, designed, constructed and tested a new design of rail gun with low weight, low voltage, and heavy armature. As a most honest scientist Arindam had provided all the details involved in his videos and Usenet and Facebook postings. Yes they are scattered all over. At the right time they will get integrated as appropriate. Arindam does this work for his company, HTN Research, which generates IP in the fields of energy and motion. That will be a holding company for others using the IP Arindam generated, all going well. Woof-woof Bertietaylor > > Since you have no data, no analysis and no error bars, you have nothing > crackpot. > >>>>> >>>>> Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, nothing new there. >> >> New thing is the huge heaviness of the armature or bullet with respect >> to the gun and its showing how it moves over the rails on a frame by >> frame basis. > > A railgun is a direct current homopolar linear motor designed for high > acceleration and thus high velocity. > >> Penisnino, show the video of ANY gun where the movement of the bullet >> within the barrel or on rails is videoed on a frame by frame basis. > > Since your "railgun" operates at low acceleration and low velocity, it > is not a railgun by definition and nothing more than a low speed linear > motor. > > <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-16 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oe06uk-e6f2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889653 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: <snip old crap> > It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that Arindam had > conceived, designed, constructed and tested a new design of rail gun > with low weight, low voltage, and heavy armature. It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that you you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun "an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at extremely high speeds" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun "a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very high velocity" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun "a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at very high speeds" https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun "A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons." To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile. All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down a track at very low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a railgun and is nothing more than a linear motor crackpot. <snip remaining crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-17 03:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2a7334e038d4d02a32aeddd7e8896d9c@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889655 |
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:56:42 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > > <snip old crap> > >> It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that Arindam had >> conceived, designed, constructed and tested a new design of rail gun >> with low weight, low voltage, and heavy armature. > > It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that you > you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun > > "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a > linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses > electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun > > "an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at > extremely high speeds" > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun > > "a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a > magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very > high velocity" > > https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun > > "a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at > very high speeds" > > https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun > > "A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses > electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater > speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons." > > To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile. > > All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down > a track at very low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a > railgun and is nothing more than a linear motor crackpot. > > <snip remaining crap> Fool, it is a *working model* of a new design rail gun with brilliant new maths involving conformal mapping for far far far higher efficiency, and new technology involved as well in the performance. When scaled up, with this design, it will beat the hell out of all existing designs, for it is far far far superior to them, by at least 1000 times! NO wonder, last heard, the US Navy have given up on them. Well, that kind of superiority, is what true genius is all about. For analogy, the songs of Arindam are that much superior as opposed to the popular billionaire howlers. Arindam calls it a railgun because like the stupid existing failed railguns it uses the same basic principle of electromagnetic force. Arindam considers it the amoeba of an internal force engine, when the heavy armature/bullet gets arrested cyclically. Woof-woof-woof-woof-woof-woof What foul fools these apes be! Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-17 06:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j6h7uk-ekh4.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889656 |
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:56:42 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> >> <snip old crap> >> >>> It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that Arindam had >>> conceived, designed, constructed and tested a new design of rail gun >>> with low weight, low voltage, and heavy armature. >> >> It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that you >> you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun >> >> "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a >> linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses >> electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." >> >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun >> >> "an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at >> extremely high speeds" >> >> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun >> >> "a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a >> magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very >> high velocity" >> >> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun >> >> "a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at >> very high speeds" >> >> https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun >> >> "A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses >> electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater >> speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons." >> >> To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile. >> >> All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down >> a track at very low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a >> railgun and is nothing more than a linear motor crackpot. >> >> <snip remaining crap> > > Fool, it is a *working model* of a new design rail gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." Your *working model* is just a low speed linear motor and does NOT launch a projectile at all. It is NOT a rail gun, crackpot. <snip raving nonsense unread>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kazu <f00@0f0.00f> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-15 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4e36753b-0086-f154-ff9f-9569905d4d03@ichigo.kinoko.kuri> |
| In reply to | #889611 |
Bertietaylor wrote: > On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 12:59:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude >>>>>> gestures. >>>>>> Metaphorically. >>>>> >>>>> Still penis obsessed, I see. >>>> >>>> No, fool. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished >>>>>> E=mcc >>>>>> physics. >>>>> >>>>> Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, >>>>> delusional >>>>> nonsense, >>>>> Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam? >>> >>> >>> Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades, >>> Penisnino. >> >> Still penis obsessed like a 10 year >> >> Yes, I know you have posted your laughable experiments that >> contain no >> data and no math over and over, Arindam. > > They do. > They make supreme sense unlike all the relativity crap. > Values have got inverted with the supremacy of Einstein's > pseudo-science. > Where science is all about extorting money from various foolish > sources > blinded by fear and propaganda. bertie, science is not about belief or faith. you need to show that things are according to xyz, and i have no doubt that certain avenues of inquiry get stifled? fine, but results talk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-16 02:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8a2fec3afd134f31003049fa8aa4d201@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889648 |
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:15:10 +0000, kazu wrote: > Bertietaylor wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 12:59:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >> >>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude >>>>>>> gestures. >>>>>>> Metaphorically. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still penis obsessed, I see. >>>>> >>>>> No, fool. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished >>>>>>> E=mcc >>>>>>> physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, >>>>>> delusional >>>>>> nonsense, >>>>>> Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam? >>>> >>>> >>>> Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades, >>>> Penisnino. >>> >>> Still penis obsessed like a 10 year >>> >>> Yes, I know you have posted your laughable experiments that >>> contain no >>> data and no math over and over, Arindam. >> >> They do. >> They make supreme sense unlike all the relativity crap. >> Values have got inverted with the supremacy of Einstein's >> pseudo-science. >> Where science is all about extorting money from various foolish >> sources >> blinded by fear and propaganda. > > > bertie, science is not about belief or faith. > > you need to show that things are according to xyz, and i have no > doubt that certain avenues of inquiry get stifled? fine, but > results talk. Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun experiments violating Newtonian laws. After that contact Arindam and ask him to give a series of lectures at a reputed institution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-15 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j9p3uk-1isg2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889649 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: <snip old craP> > Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the > physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun It seems that you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun "an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at extremely high speeds" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun "a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very high velocity" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun "a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at very high speeds" https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun "A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons." To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile. All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down a track at low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a railgun and is nothing more than a linear motor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-17 23:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e8c2adfd5adcc814df0a29c26f68f3d9@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889650 |
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 3:42:13 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > > <snip old craP> > >> Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the >> physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun > > It seems that you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun > > "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a > linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses > electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun > > "an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at > extremely high speeds" > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun > > "a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a > magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very > high velocity" > > https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun > > "a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at > very high speeds" > > https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun > > "A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses > electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater > speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons." > > To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile. > > All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down > a track at low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a > railgun > and is nothing more than a linear motor. It is most certainly a linear motor like a railgun but over 1000 times more efficient with its new design. Trillions of dollars will turn it into reactionless motors for interstellar travel. Lots of work to be done once the physics behind it gets due publicity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-17 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <k9l8uk-aod6.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889659 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 3:42:13 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> >> <snip old craP> >> >>> Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the >>> physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun >> >> It seems that you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun >> >> "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a >> linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses >> electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." >> >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun >> >> "an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at >> extremely high speeds" >> >> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun >> >> "a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a >> magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very >> high velocity" >> >> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun >> >> "a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at >> very high speeds" >> >> https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun >> >> "A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses >> electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater >> speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons." >> >> To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile. >> >> All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down >> a track at low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a >> railgun >> and is nothing more than a linear motor. > > It is most certainly a linear motor like a railgun but over 1000 times > more efficient with its new design. Since you have zero data from which to calculate efficiency, you are just raving crackpot. > into reactionless motors for interstellar travel I will take a bit more than dropping pipes on the floor to achieve interstellar travel and that's all your device does, drop pipes on the floor crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-17 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09n8uk-v4h6.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889659 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 3:42:13 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> >> <snip old craP> >> >>> Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the >>> physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun >> >> It seems that you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun >> >> "A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a >> linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses >> electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles." >> >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun >> >> "an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at >> extremely high speeds" >> >> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun >> >> "a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a >> magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very >> high velocity" >> >> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun >> >> "a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at >> very high speeds" >> >> https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun >> >> "A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses >> electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater >> speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons." >> >> To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile. >> >> All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down >> a track at low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a >> railgun >> and is nothing more than a linear motor. > > It is most certainly a linear motor like a railgun but over 1000 times > more efficient with its new design. The effiency of homopolar linear motors designed with 2 rails as in a railgun is about 50%, so your motor is 50,000% efficient, crackpot? <snip raving nonsense>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-18 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d641367af84e80efbc3322286f2d7660@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889661 |
You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino. No point talking science to you. Let alone Arindam's physics. Arindam of course finds you to be neither for profit nor for entertainment. So best avoided. We his dogs do find you tiresome but give you some marks for your persistence in showing what utter fatheads the e=MCC wallahs are. Woof-woof What fools these apes be! Bertietaylor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-17 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hn29uk-cap6.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #889663 |
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino. You said your device has 1000 times better efficiency while I pointed out that exiting devices have about 50% efficiency, which means your device has a 50,000% effiency, which is obviously ridiculous crackpot. <snip delusional raving unread>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-18 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <49bb9bb5d3ec5f2fb1964f5b414deb4d@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #889665 |
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 3:53:55 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino. > > You said your device has 1000 times better efficiency while I pointed > out that exiting devices have about 50% efficiency, Idiot you have no clue about engineering. There are many parameters related to efficiency not just making up figures on the fly as you did. Arindam's design is certainly 1000 times at least better as it can be used for making practical reactionless motors for outer space and very fast near space travel. Infinitely better really for there is no hope from existing designs for anr reactionless motor mode. As a gun it will be a infinitely better for with very heavy and slow armature it can be used for mining and construction by impact drilling. Not possible with existing designs. As a weapon it will cause - well Arindam does not want to go into that unless the Australian Govt wants superior air defence. But given lack of barrel wear, capability to launch not just heavy bullets but missiles at supersonic speeds, comparatively low voltages for the high currents, far greater L factor with new maths, easy scalability - yes it will be at least 1000 times better from overall performance efficiency as a weapon. Woof-woof Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs) which means your > device has a 50,000% effiency, which is obviously ridiculous crackpot. Go away, Penisnino, and chant your simple mantra e=MCC 300000000 times. All you show is that you are > > <snip delusional raving unread>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web