Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #621050 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-01 04:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-03-03 18:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 28 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 04:49 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-01 13:50 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 00:18 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-02 22:29 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 03:52 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-02 23:31 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-03 18:14 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-04 11:06 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-03 19:34 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-04 12:07 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-04 17:32 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 15:14 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-05 11:36 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-04 20:14 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-05 13:35 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 04:59 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-06 22:42 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-06 18:09 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-02 22:03 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-03 18:13 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 09:41 -0800
objectum noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:51 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-02 19:51 +1100
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 02:49 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 18:06 -0800
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-03 15:10 +1100
Re: Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-03-03 19:12 -0500
Re: Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest "Antonio Humidifier" <mahipals_ballsack@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 18:35 -0800
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 04:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Experiments on video showing a new physics effect along with its consequences for space conquest |
| Message-ID | <3b423bc4-67ef-43f8-ad84-1251cf20f115@googlegroups.com> |
Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy relationship in this newsgroup. Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research and the following links show the results of my recent experiments, along with their analysis and theories. I do expect that efforts will be made understand and replicate my experiments. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee 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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 13:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1650bcdb-7fb3-44f3-a318-e53d391cf41d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #621050 |
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy relationship > in this newsgroup. > > Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research and the > following links show the results of my recent experiments, along with their > analysis and theories. [] Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. Otherwise your post is just spam. Respectfully, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 00:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2641053a-5ceb-4037-ac12-9c779f8e18b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #621104 |
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy relationship > > in this newsgroup. > > > > Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research and the > > following links show the results of my recent experiments, along with their > > analysis and theories. > [] > > Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. > > If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. > Otherwise your post is just spam. > > Respectfully, > ed Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many newsgroups including this one. Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time and effort to make the videos. The first four minutes of any video will give the information you require. They are expected to lead to more viewing. In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their analysis as will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a reaction. This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate indefinitely. Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about the workings of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is validated. This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but science is always provisional. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 22:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehqe1jF2p0fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #621186 |
On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy relationship >>> in this newsgroup. >>> >>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research and the >>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along with their >>> analysis and theories. >> [] >> >> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >> >> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >> Otherwise your post is just spam. >> >> Respectfully, >> ed > > Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many newsgroups > including this one. > Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time and effort > to make the videos. > The first four minutes of any video will give the information you require. > They are expected to lead to more viewing. > > In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their analysis as > will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a reaction. > > This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate indefinitely. > > Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. > > It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about the workings > of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is validated. > > This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but science is > always provisional. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely convincing. You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're preparing to release the rod. It should have been easy enough to arrange a mechanical release so that such interference wasn't possible. But then, of course, the experiment wouldn't have worked. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 03:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1fbcdb1a-9f9d-458d-b256-37ee0d270a7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #621197 |
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy relationship > >>> in this newsgroup. > >>> > >>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research and the > >>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along with their > >>> analysis and theories. > >> [] > >> > >> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. > >> > >> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. > >> Otherwise your post is just spam. > >> > >> Respectfully, > >> ed > > > > Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many newsgroups > > including this one. > > Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time and effort > > to make the videos. > > The first four minutes of any video will give the information you require. > > They are expected to lead to more viewing. > > > > In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their analysis as > > will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a reaction. > > > > This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate indefinitely. > > > > Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. > > > > It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about the workings > > of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is validated. > > > > This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but science is > > always provisional. > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely > convincing. It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she has to do the experiments and find out. > You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're > preparing to release the rod. No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for both the current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in IFE-3. I have done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far as reaction to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In other words the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is accelerated by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the armature, and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is predicted by the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the induced magnetic field and the current through the conductor. The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as fire or the wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then the same effect will be found. >It should have been easy enough to arrange > a mechanical release so that such interference wasn't possible. But > then, of course, the experiment wouldn't have worked. No doubt the experiment could be improved. But the result will be the same. I am pushing out my hands out in both cases in the same way. The movement of the armature has been tracked on a millisecond basis. There should be from the video no evidence that I have been up to any tricks! So let us cut the evasion and repeat the experiment. I will be happy to do this experiment anywhere to any audience. A mechanical device is difficult to make so one has to depend upon the video evidence that will show no extra interference. Then again, check the maths for the efficiency of the motor in IFE-7 and see how that matches with the experimental results. So it all nicely matches so far, and now the next thing is that these experiments have to be repeated by other people. In IFE 2 I have given details about how to set up and perform the experiments. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 23:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehqhkhF3g1sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #621199 |
On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy relationship >>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>> >>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research and the >>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along with their >>>>> analysis and theories. >>>> [] >>>> >>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>> >>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>> >>>> Respectfully, >>>> ed >>> >>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many newsgroups >>> including this one. >>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time and effort >>> to make the videos. >>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you require. >>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>> >>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their analysis as >>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a reaction. >>> >>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate indefinitely. >>> >>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. >>> >>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about the workings >>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is validated. >>> >>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but science is >>> always provisional. >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >>> >> >> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely >> convincing. > > It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she has to do the > experiments and find out. > >> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >> preparing to release the rod. > > No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for both the > current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in IFE-3. The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. > > I have > done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far as reaction > to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In other words > the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is accelerated > by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the armature, > and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is predicted by > the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the induced magnetic > field and the current through the conductor. It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. But the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field acts on the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick and choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. > > The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a > most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as fire or the > wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then the same > effect will be found. Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. Why would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? Any reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've improved your technique. The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A much more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) would be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth rollers on top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, and watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the rod should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. But then, we know that's not what would happen. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 18:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58b9f8e7$0$51660$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621200 |
On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy >>>>>> relationship >>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>> >>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research >>>>>> and the >>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along >>>>>> with their >>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>> [] >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>> >>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> ed >>>> >>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many >>>> newsgroups >>>> including this one. >>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time >>>> and effort >>>> to make the videos. >>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >>>> require. >>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>> >>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>> analysis as >>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a >>>> reaction. >>>> >>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>> indefinitely. >>>> >>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. >>>> >>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about >>>> the workings >>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>> validated. >>>> >>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but >>>> science is >>>> always provisional. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>> >>> >>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely >>> convincing. >> >> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she has to >> do the >> experiments and find out. >> >>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>> preparing to release the rod. >> >> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >> both the >> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in IFE-3. > > The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral > position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. > >> >> I have >> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far >> as reaction >> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In >> other words >> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is >> accelerated >> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >> armature, >> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >> predicted by >> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the induced >> magnetic >> field and the current through the conductor. > > It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the > circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. But > the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field acts on > the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick and > choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. > >> >> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as fire >> or the >> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then >> the same >> effect will be found. > > Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments > properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think > there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. Why > would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? Any > reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've improved > your technique. > > The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A much > more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) would > be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth rollers on > top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism > mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, and > watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the rod > should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. > > But then, we know that's not what would happen. Are you sure? And if so why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 11:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehuenfFrpieU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #621375 |
On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: > On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy >>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research >>>>>>> and the >>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along >>>>>>> with their >>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>> [] >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>> >>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>> ed >>>>> >>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many >>>>> newsgroups >>>>> including this one. >>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time >>>>> and effort >>>>> to make the videos. >>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >>>>> require. >>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>> analysis as >>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a >>>>> reaction. >>>>> >>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>> indefinitely. >>>>> >>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. >>>>> >>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about >>>>> the workings >>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>>> validated. >>>>> >>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but >>>>> science is >>>>> always provisional. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely >>>> convincing. >>> >>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she has to >>> do the >>> experiments and find out. >>> >>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>> preparing to release the rod. >>> >>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >>> both the >>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in IFE-3. >> >> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral >> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >> >>> >>> I have >>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far >>> as reaction >>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In >>> other words >>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is >>> accelerated >>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >>> armature, >>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>> predicted by >>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the induced >>> magnetic >>> field and the current through the conductor. >> >> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. But >> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field acts on >> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick and >> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >> >>> >>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as fire >>> or the >>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then >>> the same >>> effect will be found. >> >> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think >> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. Why >> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? Any >> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've improved >> your technique. >> >> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A much >> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) would >> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth rollers on >> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism >> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, and >> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the rod >> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >> >> But then, we know that's not what would happen. > > Are you sure? And if so why? > > Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested theory we have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has shown any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the rest of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and demonstrate a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it worked, since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of throwing otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of rods. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 19:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58ba0b8a$0$51711$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621394 |
On 3/3/2017 7:06 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: >> On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy >>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along >>>>>>>> with their >>>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>>> [] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>>> ed >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many >>>>>> newsgroups >>>>>> including this one. >>>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time >>>>>> and effort >>>>>> to make the videos. >>>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >>>>>> require. >>>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>>> analysis as >>>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a >>>>>> reaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about >>>>>> the workings >>>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>>>> validated. >>>>>> >>>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but >>>>>> science is >>>>>> always provisional. >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely >>>>> convincing. >>>> >>>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she has to >>>> do the >>>> experiments and find out. >>>> >>>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>>> preparing to release the rod. >>>> >>>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >>>> both the >>>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in IFE-3. >>> >>> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral >>> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >>> >>>> >>>> I have >>>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far >>>> as reaction >>>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In >>>> other words >>>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is >>>> accelerated >>>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >>>> armature, >>>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>>> predicted by >>>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the induced >>>> magnetic >>>> field and the current through the conductor. >>> >>> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >>> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. But >>> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field acts on >>> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick and >>> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >>> >>>> >>>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as fire >>>> or the >>>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then >>>> the same >>>> effect will be found. >>> >>> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >>> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think >>> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. Why >>> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? Any >>> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've improved >>> your technique. >>> >>> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A much >>> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) would >>> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth rollers on >>> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism >>> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, and >>> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the rod >>> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >>> >>> But then, we know that's not what would happen. >> >> Are you sure? And if so why? >> >> > Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested theory we > have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has shown > any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. > > If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the rest > of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and demonstrate > a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. > > As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it worked, > since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system > containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of throwing > otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of rods. > > Sylvia. You don't think that a violation of Newton's third law is an interesting effect? (Not that this occurs in this particular motor which is why I raised the point)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 12:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehuibgFsd9qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #621397 |
On 4/03/2017 11:34 AM, benj wrote: > On 3/3/2017 7:06 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy >>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research >>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along >>>>>>>>> with their >>>>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>>>> ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many >>>>>>> newsgroups >>>>>>> including this one. >>>>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time >>>>>>> and effort >>>>>>> to make the videos. >>>>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >>>>>>> require. >>>>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>>>> analysis as >>>>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a >>>>>>> reaction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about >>>>>>> the workings >>>>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>>>>> validated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but >>>>>>> science is >>>>>>> always provisional. >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely >>>>>> convincing. >>>>> >>>>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she has to >>>>> do the >>>>> experiments and find out. >>>>> >>>>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>>>> preparing to release the rod. >>>>> >>>>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >>>>> both the >>>>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in IFE-3. >>>> >>>> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral >>>> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have >>>>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far >>>>> as reaction >>>>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In >>>>> other words >>>>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is >>>>> accelerated >>>>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >>>>> armature, >>>>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>>>> predicted by >>>>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the induced >>>>> magnetic >>>>> field and the current through the conductor. >>>> >>>> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >>>> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. But >>>> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field >>>> acts on >>>> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick and >>>> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>>>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as fire >>>>> or the >>>>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then >>>>> the same >>>>> effect will be found. >>>> >>>> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >>>> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think >>>> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. Why >>>> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? >>>> Any >>>> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've improved >>>> your technique. >>>> >>>> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A >>>> much >>>> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) would >>>> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth rollers on >>>> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism >>>> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, and >>>> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the rod >>>> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >>>> >>>> But then, we know that's not what would happen. >>> >>> Are you sure? And if so why? >>> >>> >> Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested theory we >> have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has shown >> any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. >> >> If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the rest >> of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and demonstrate >> a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. >> >> As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it worked, >> since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system >> containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of throwing >> otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of rods. >> >> Sylvia. > > You don't think that a violation of Newton's third law is an interesting > effect? (Not that this occurs in this particular motor which is why I > raised the point) > It would be, if it occurred, but we have no reason to think that's the case. The nearest thing we have to an actual demonstration produces effects that are so small that it's difficult to exclude sources of experimental error. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 17:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58bb4093$0$51736$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621400 |
On 3/3/2017 8:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/03/2017 11:34 AM, benj wrote: >> On 3/3/2017 7:06 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and >>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research >>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along >>>>>>>>>> with their >>>>>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>>>>> ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many >>>>>>>> newsgroups >>>>>>>> including this one. >>>>>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> and effort >>>>>>>> to make the videos. >>>>>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >>>>>>>> require. >>>>>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>>>>> analysis as >>>>>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not >>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> reaction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not >>>>>>>> spam. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about >>>>>>>> the workings >>>>>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>>>>>> validated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> science is >>>>>>>> always provisional. >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely >>>>>>> convincing. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she has to >>>>>> do the >>>>>> experiments and find out. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>>>>> preparing to release the rod. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >>>>>> both the >>>>>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in >>>>>> IFE-3. >>>>> >>>>> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral >>>>> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have >>>>>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far >>>>>> as reaction >>>>>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In >>>>>> other words >>>>>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is >>>>>> accelerated >>>>>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >>>>>> armature, >>>>>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>>>>> predicted by >>>>>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the >>>>>> induced >>>>>> magnetic >>>>>> field and the current through the conductor. >>>>> >>>>> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >>>>> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. But >>>>> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field >>>>> acts on >>>>> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick >>>>> and >>>>> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>>>>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as fire >>>>>> or the >>>>>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then >>>>>> the same >>>>>> effect will be found. >>>>> >>>>> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >>>>> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think >>>>> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. >>>>> Why >>>>> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? >>>>> Any >>>>> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've improved >>>>> your technique. >>>>> >>>>> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A >>>>> much >>>>> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) >>>>> would >>>>> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth >>>>> rollers on >>>>> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism >>>>> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, and >>>>> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the >>>>> rod >>>>> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >>>>> >>>>> But then, we know that's not what would happen. >>>> >>>> Are you sure? And if so why? >>>> >>>> >>> Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested theory we >>> have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has shown >>> any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. >>> >>> If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the rest >>> of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and demonstrate >>> a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. >>> >>> As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it worked, >>> since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system >>> containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of throwing >>> otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of rods. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> You don't think that a violation of Newton's third law is an interesting >> effect? (Not that this occurs in this particular motor which is why I >> raised the point) >> > > It would be, if it occurred, but we have no reason to think that's the > case. The nearest thing we have to an actual demonstration produces > effects that are so small that it's difficult to exclude sources of > experimental error. > > Sylvia. You need to be better informed. Go read Jefimenko's derivation and then come back and discuss it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 15:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b9312ba4-03e5-4b43-9e52-911774b5f52c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #621513 |
ha, saith mister *mathematica* ain't math -- d0h > You need to be better informed. Go read Jefimenko's derivation and then > come back and discuss it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 11:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ei14t0Fdg2pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #621513 |
On 5/03/2017 9:32 AM, benj wrote: > On 3/3/2017 8:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/03/2017 11:34 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 3/3/2017 7:06 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and >>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research >>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along >>>>>>>>>>> with their >>>>>>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>>>>>> ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to >>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>> newsgroups >>>>>>>>> including this one. >>>>>>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of >>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>> and effort >>>>>>>>> to make the videos. >>>>>>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >>>>>>>>> require. >>>>>>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>>>>>> analysis as >>>>>>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not >>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>> reaction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not >>>>>>>>> spam. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> the workings >>>>>>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>>>>>>> validated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> science is >>>>>>>>> always provisional. >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is >>>>>>>> remotely >>>>>>>> convincing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she >>>>>>> has to >>>>>>> do the >>>>>>> experiments and find out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>>>>>> preparing to release the rod. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >>>>>>> both the >>>>>>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in >>>>>>> IFE-3. >>>>>> >>>>>> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral >>>>>> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have >>>>>>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so far >>>>>>> as reaction >>>>>>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is concerned. In >>>>>>> other words >>>>>>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the armature is >>>>>>> accelerated >>>>>>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >>>>>>> armature, >>>>>>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>>>>>> predicted by >>>>>>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the >>>>>>> induced >>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>> field and the current through the conductor. >>>>>> >>>>>> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >>>>>> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. >>>>>> But >>>>>> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field >>>>>> acts on >>>>>> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick >>>>>> and >>>>>> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>>>>>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as >>>>>>> fire >>>>>>> or the >>>>>>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) then >>>>>>> the same >>>>>>> effect will be found. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >>>>>> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think >>>>>> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. >>>>>> Why >>>>>> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? >>>>>> Any >>>>>> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've improved >>>>>> your technique. >>>>>> >>>>>> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A >>>>>> much >>>>>> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) >>>>>> would >>>>>> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth >>>>>> rollers on >>>>>> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism >>>>>> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, and >>>>>> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the >>>>>> rod >>>>>> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >>>>>> >>>>>> But then, we know that's not what would happen. >>>>> >>>>> Are you sure? And if so why? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested >>>> theory we >>>> have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has shown >>>> any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. >>>> >>>> If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the rest >>>> of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and >>>> demonstrate >>>> a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. >>>> >>>> As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it worked, >>>> since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system >>>> containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of >>>> throwing >>>> otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of rods. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> You don't think that a violation of Newton's third law is an interesting >>> effect? (Not that this occurs in this particular motor which is why I >>> raised the point) >>> >> >> It would be, if it occurred, but we have no reason to think that's the >> case. The nearest thing we have to an actual demonstration produces >> effects that are so small that it's difficult to exclude sources of >> experimental error. >> >> Sylvia. > > You need to be better informed. Go read Jefimenko's derivation and then > come back and discuss it. > Did Jefimenko derive an experiment that demonstrates significant effects? If not, then it's irrelevant. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 20:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58bb6662$0$41880$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621548 |
On 3/4/2017 7:36 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/03/2017 9:32 AM, benj wrote: >> On 3/3/2017 8:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 4/03/2017 11:34 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2017 7:06 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, >>>>>>>>>> edpr...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam >>>>>>>>>>> Banerjee >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and >>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research >>>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, >>>>>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>>>> with their >>>>>>>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>>>>>>> ed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> newsgroups >>>>>>>>>> including this one. >>>>>>>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of >>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>> and effort >>>>>>>>>> to make the videos. >>>>>>>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >>>>>>>>>> require. >>>>>>>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>>>>>>> analysis as >>>>>>>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not >>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>> reaction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>>>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not >>>>>>>>>> spam. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> the workings >>>>>>>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>>>>>>>> validated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> science is >>>>>>>>>> always provisional. >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is >>>>>>>>> remotely >>>>>>>>> convincing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she >>>>>>>> has to >>>>>>>> do the >>>>>>>> experiments and find out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>>>>>>> preparing to release the rod. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >>>>>>>> both the >>>>>>>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in >>>>>>>> IFE-3. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its neutral >>>>>>> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so >>>>>>>> far >>>>>>>> as reaction >>>>>>>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is >>>>>>>> concerned. In >>>>>>>> other words >>>>>>>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the >>>>>>>> armature is >>>>>>>> accelerated >>>>>>>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >>>>>>>> armature, >>>>>>>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>>>>>>> predicted by >>>>>>>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the >>>>>>>> induced >>>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>>> field and the current through the conductor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >>>>>>> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. >>>>>>> But >>>>>>> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field >>>>>>> acts on >>>>>>> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>>>>>>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as >>>>>>>> fire >>>>>>>> or the >>>>>>>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>> effect will be found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >>>>>>> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to think >>>>>>> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. >>>>>>> Why >>>>>>> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between them? >>>>>>> Any >>>>>>> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've >>>>>>> improved >>>>>>> your technique. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth >>>>>>> rollers on >>>>>>> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a mechanism >>>>>>> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the >>>>>>> rod >>>>>>> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But then, we know that's not what would happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you sure? And if so why? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested >>>>> theory we >>>>> have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has >>>>> shown >>>>> any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. >>>>> >>>>> If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the rest >>>>> of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and >>>>> demonstrate >>>>> a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. >>>>> >>>>> As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it worked, >>>>> since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system >>>>> containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of >>>>> throwing >>>>> otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of rods. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> You don't think that a violation of Newton's third law is an >>>> interesting >>>> effect? (Not that this occurs in this particular motor which is why I >>>> raised the point) >>>> >>> >>> It would be, if it occurred, but we have no reason to think that's the >>> case. The nearest thing we have to an actual demonstration produces >>> effects that are so small that it's difficult to exclude sources of >>> experimental error. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> You need to be better informed. Go read Jefimenko's derivation and then >> come back and discuss it. >> > > Did Jefimenko derive an experiment that demonstrates significant > effects? If not, then it's irrelevant. Right. All theoretical physics unless incomprehensible is irrelevant. Got it. I presume you are saying you haven't read it, don't intend to read it, but do intend to dismiss it as nonsense based upon your total lack of knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 13:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ei1bqoFekvmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #621554 |
On 5/03/2017 12:14 PM, benj wrote: > On 3/4/2017 7:36 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 5/03/2017 9:32 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 3/3/2017 8:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 4/03/2017 11:34 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 3/3/2017 7:06 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, >>>>>>>>>>> edpr...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam >>>>>>>>>>>> Banerjee >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my >>>>>>>>>>>>> research >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, >>>>>>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>>>>> with their >>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>>>>>>>> ed >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to >>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>> newsgroups >>>>>>>>>>> including this one. >>>>>>>>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of >>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>> and effort >>>>>>>>>>> to make the videos. >>>>>>>>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> require. >>>>>>>>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>>>>>>>> analysis as >>>>>>>>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not >>>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>> reaction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>>>>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not >>>>>>>>>>> spam. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding >>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> the workings >>>>>>>>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >>>>>>>>>>> validated. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> science is >>>>>>>>>>> always provisional. >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is >>>>>>>>>> remotely >>>>>>>>>> convincing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she >>>>>>>>> has to >>>>>>>>> do the >>>>>>>>> experiments and find out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>>>>>>>> preparing to release the rod. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once for >>>>>>>>> both the >>>>>>>>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in >>>>>>>>> IFE-3. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its >>>>>>>> neutral >>>>>>>> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so >>>>>>>>> far >>>>>>>>> as reaction >>>>>>>>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is >>>>>>>>> concerned. In >>>>>>>>> other words >>>>>>>>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the >>>>>>>>> armature is >>>>>>>>> accelerated >>>>>>>>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating the >>>>>>>>> armature, >>>>>>>>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>>>>>>>> predicted by >>>>>>>>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the >>>>>>>>> induced >>>>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>>>> field and the current through the conductor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >>>>>>>> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. >>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field >>>>>>>> acts on >>>>>>>> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't pick >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>>>>>>>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as >>>>>>>>> fire >>>>>>>>> or the >>>>>>>>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) >>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>>> effect will be found. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >>>>>>>> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the wiring. >>>>>>>> Why >>>>>>>> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between >>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've >>>>>>>> improved >>>>>>>> your technique. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the issue. A >>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth >>>>>>>> rollers on >>>>>>>> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a >>>>>>>> mechanism >>>>>>>> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, the >>>>>>>> rod >>>>>>>> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But then, we know that's not what would happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you sure? And if so why? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested >>>>>> theory we >>>>>> have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has >>>>>> shown >>>>>> any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the >>>>>> rest >>>>>> of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and >>>>>> demonstrate >>>>>> a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. >>>>>> >>>>>> As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it >>>>>> worked, >>>>>> since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system >>>>>> containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of >>>>>> throwing >>>>>> otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of rods. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> You don't think that a violation of Newton's third law is an >>>>> interesting >>>>> effect? (Not that this occurs in this particular motor which is why I >>>>> raised the point) >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would be, if it occurred, but we have no reason to think that's the >>>> case. The nearest thing we have to an actual demonstration produces >>>> effects that are so small that it's difficult to exclude sources of >>>> experimental error. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> You need to be better informed. Go read Jefimenko's derivation and then >>> come back and discuss it. >>> >> >> Did Jefimenko derive an experiment that demonstrates significant >> effects? If not, then it's irrelevant. > > Right. All theoretical physics unless incomprehensible is irrelevant. > Got it. I presume you are saying you haven't read it, don't intend to > read it, but do intend to dismiss it as nonsense based upon your total > lack of knowledge. > It's not an experiment. Until we have an experiment that shows a reaction-less effect, there's not a lot of point in formulating theories. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 04:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58bd32ec$0$60291$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621556 |
On 03/04/2017 09:35 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/03/2017 12:14 PM, benj wrote: >> On 3/4/2017 7:36 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 5/03/2017 9:32 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2017 8:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 4/03/2017 11:34 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 3/3/2017 7:06 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/03/2017 10:14 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2017 7:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:29:59 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, >>>>>>>>>>>> edpr...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam >>>>>>>>>>>>> Banerjee >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this newsgroup. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> research >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis and theories. >>>>>>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>>>>>>>>> ed >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to >>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroups >>>>>>>>>>>> including this one. >>>>>>>>>>>> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>> and effort >>>>>>>>>>>> to make the videos. >>>>>>>>>>>> The first four minutes of any video will give the information >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> require. >>>>>>>>>>>> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >>>>>>>>>>>> analysis as >>>>>>>>>>>> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not >>>>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>>> reaction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate >>>>>>>>>>>> indefinitely. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not >>>>>>>>>>>> spam. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> the workings >>>>>>>>>>>> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian >>>>>>>>>>>> approach is >>>>>>>>>>>> validated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due >>>>>>>>>>>> course, >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> science is >>>>>>>>>>>> always provisional. >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is >>>>>>>>>>> remotely >>>>>>>>>>> convincing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is not a matter of imagination for any scientist. He or she >>>>>>>>>> has to >>>>>>>>>> do the >>>>>>>>>> experiments and find out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're >>>>>>>>>>> preparing to release the rod. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. I take care that I do not. I release both my hands at once >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> both the >>>>>>>>>> current and non-current cases. There are videos showing this in >>>>>>>>>> IFE-3. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The videos clearly show you displacing the pendulum from its >>>>>>>>> neutral >>>>>>>>> position. If you cannot see that, then you're deluding yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>>>> done the experiment many times and always got the null result so >>>>>>>>>> far >>>>>>>>>> as reaction >>>>>>>>>> to the force giving the extra force to the armature is >>>>>>>>>> concerned. In >>>>>>>>>> other words >>>>>>>>>> the law of conservation of momentum is violated when the >>>>>>>>>> armature is >>>>>>>>>> accelerated >>>>>>>>>> by the current. There is no reaction to the force accelerating >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> armature, >>>>>>>>>> and this is a new and most profound discovery. However this is >>>>>>>>>> predicted by >>>>>>>>>> the Lorenz relation, where the force depends entirely upon the >>>>>>>>>> induced >>>>>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>>>>> field and the current through the conductor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It certainly isn't predicted. The current through the rest of the >>>>>>>>> circuit creates a field which acts on the current through the rod. >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>> the current through the rod also creates a field, and that field >>>>>>>>> acts on >>>>>>>>> the current flowing through the rest of the circuit. You can't >>>>>>>>> pick >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> choose which bits of the circuit to analyse. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The experiment can be repeated by anyone. It is a >>>>>>>>>> most important experiment leading to a discovery as important as >>>>>>>>>> fire >>>>>>>>>> or the >>>>>>>>>> wheel. When it is repeated by someone else (honestly of course) >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>>>> effect will be found. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would anyone bother, when you've failed to do the experiments >>>>>>>>> properly? It's not as if there was ever any a-priori reason to >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> there'd be an asymmetry between the rod and the rest of the >>>>>>>>> wiring. >>>>>>>>> Why >>>>>>>>> would the universe have an interest in differentiating between >>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>> reasonable scientist would tell you to come back when you've >>>>>>>>> improved >>>>>>>>> your technique. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The use of a pendulum and inclined track just confuses the >>>>>>>>> issue. A >>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>> more compelling demonstration (assuming the lack of actual fraud) >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> be one where the track was horizontal, and mounted on smooth >>>>>>>>> rollers on >>>>>>>>> top of a smooth base. Release the rod mechanically using a >>>>>>>>> mechanism >>>>>>>>> mounted on the track to obviate any risk of inadvertent movement, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> watch what happens. If you're right about the lack of reaction, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> rod >>>>>>>>> should head off in one direction, but the track should stay still. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But then, we know that's not what would happen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are you sure? And if so why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because that outcome is what is predicted by every well tested >>>>>>> theory we >>>>>>> have that's relevant, and no competently performed experiment has >>>>>>> shown >>>>>>> any different, especially at the level claimed for this system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there really were a force on the rod without a reaction on the >>>>>>> rest >>>>>>> of the circuit, then he could just fix the rod in place, and >>>>>>> demonstrate >>>>>>> a displacement of the pendulum when the current is on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an aside, the "motor" would seem pretty useless, even if it >>>>>>> worked, >>>>>>> since the claimed force is on the rod, not on the part of the system >>>>>>> containing the power supply. It would be a reaction-less way of >>>>>>> throwing >>>>>>> otherwise inert metal rods into space, which is just a waste of >>>>>>> rods. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't think that a violation of Newton's third law is an >>>>>> interesting >>>>>> effect? (Not that this occurs in this particular motor which is why I >>>>>> raised the point) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be, if it occurred, but we have no reason to think that's the >>>>> case. The nearest thing we have to an actual demonstration produces >>>>> effects that are so small that it's difficult to exclude sources of >>>>> experimental error. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> You need to be better informed. Go read Jefimenko's derivation and then >>>> come back and discuss it. >>>> >>> >>> Did Jefimenko derive an experiment that demonstrates significant >>> effects? If not, then it's irrelevant. >> >> Right. All theoretical physics unless incomprehensible is irrelevant. >> Got it. I presume you are saying you haven't read it, don't intend to >> read it, but do intend to dismiss it as nonsense based upon your total >> lack of knowledge. >> > > It's not an experiment. Until we have an experiment that shows a > reaction-less effect, there's not a lot of point in formulating theories. So you are saying the there is no point to Maxwell? I think most of it has been covered by more than a few experiments. Dare I instruct you as to how science works. One takes a theory and uses mathematics to PREDICT new and interesting results. The final step is obviously experiments to verify or disprove those predictions. So The fact that this process is only partially complete means that you simply cannot think about these ideas until such time as they appear in textbooks and Odd gives you the go-ahead to start memorizing them? You think THAT is "science"? He's into philosophy, not science, remember?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 22:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ei509qF5t1fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #621745 |
On 6/03/2017 8:59 PM, benj wrote: >> It's not an experiment. Until we have an experiment that shows a >> reaction-less effect, there's not a lot of point in formulating theories. > > So you are saying the there is no point to Maxwell? I think most of it > has been covered by more than a few experiments. Dare I instruct you as > to how science works. One takes a theory and uses mathematics to PREDICT > new and interesting results. The final step is obviously experiments to > verify or disprove those predictions. So The fact that this process is > only partially complete means that you simply cannot think about these > ideas until such time as they appear in textbooks and Odd gives you the > go-ahead to start memorizing them? You think THAT is "science"? He's > into philosophy, not science, remember? There's no point in pulling a theory out of the air. It has to fit the results of existing experiments. Any theory that predicts significant reaction free forces must do so only for scenarios that have not yet been experimented on, since those are known not to give reaction free forces. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 18:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58bdec2c$0$4505$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621752 |
On 3/6/2017 6:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 6/03/2017 8:59 PM, benj wrote: > >>> It's not an experiment. Until we have an experiment that shows a >>> reaction-less effect, there's not a lot of point in formulating >>> theories. >> >> So you are saying the there is no point to Maxwell? I think most of it >> has been covered by more than a few experiments. Dare I instruct you as >> to how science works. One takes a theory and uses mathematics to PREDICT >> new and interesting results. The final step is obviously experiments to >> verify or disprove those predictions. So The fact that this process is >> only partially complete means that you simply cannot think about these >> ideas until such time as they appear in textbooks and Odd gives you the >> go-ahead to start memorizing them? You think THAT is "science"? He's >> into philosophy, not science, remember? > > There's no point in pulling a theory out of the air. It has to fit the > results of existing experiments. Any theory that predicts significant > reaction free forces must do so only for scenarios that have not yet > been experimented on, since those are known not to give reaction free > forces. > > Sylvia. > A mathematical derivation is not "out of thin air". Obviously you COULD go read what he has done and point out the mathematical errors in it. Or better you could read nothing but still ridicule it because "everybody knows" it's insane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 22:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7ca79a1a-7762-4c9c-ab2f-3f4fd34bc856@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #621199 |
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: [] > > No doubt the experiment could be improved. But the result will be the same. []> > So let us cut the evasion and repeat the experiment. I will be happy to do this > experiment anywhere to any audience. A mechanical device is difficult to make > so one has to depend upon the video evidence that will show no extra > interference. > So you conducted an experiment. Write it up. What was the expected acceleration? What was the actual acceleration? Numbers and calculations please, NOT look at the videos. > Then again, check the maths for the efficiency of the motor in IFE-7 and see > how that matches with the experimental results. post the math here if you want to be taken seriously. > > So it all nicely matches so far, and now the next thing is that these > experiments have to be repeated by other people. In IFE 2 I have given details > about how to set up and perform the experiments. State the procedure. if what you claim is true it should be easy to write this and submit it to one of the many physics journals. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > Looking forward to your paper. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 18:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58b9f883$0$51660$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #621197 |
On 3/2/2017 6:29 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/03/2017 7:18 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:50:42 AM UTC+11, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> Back in 2000, I had posted a formula showing a new mass and energy >>>> relationship >>>> in this newsgroup. >>>> >>>> Despite tremendous adversity, I have persisted with my research and the >>>> following links show the results of my recent experiments, along >>>> with their >>>> analysis and theories. >>> [] >>> >>> Sorry, but I don't usually follow links from here. >>> >>> If you want to discuss your ideas here, please post them here. >>> Otherwise your post is just spam. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> ed >> >> Actually I have been posting my ideas for the past 17 years to many >> newsgroups >> including this one. >> Since the interaction was not conclusive, I have spent a lot of time >> and effort >> to make the videos. >> The first four minutes of any video will give the information you >> require. >> They are expected to lead to more viewing. >> >> In any case, the new physics shown by my experiments and their >> analysis as >> will be found by the videos is that the Lorenz force does not have a >> reaction. >> >> This means that we can make spaceships which can accelerate indefinitely. >> >> Since my effort was to make myself clear what I posted was not spam. >> >> It is necessary to see the videos to come to an understanding about >> the workings >> of electrodynamics - it is clear that the Maxwellian approach is >> validated. >> >> This will no doubt lead to an upheaval in physics in due course, but >> science is >> always provisional. >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >> > > I can't imagine why you think that experimental protocol is remotely > convincing. You clearly affect the position of the pendulum when you're > preparing to release the rod. It should have been easy enough to arrange > a mechanical release so that such interference wasn't possible. But > then, of course, the experiment wouldn't have worked. > > Sylvia. > Exactly. Pendulum obviously moves. Whole experimental apparatus is nonsense. This guy is supposed to be an "engineer" and he can't come up with a better apparatus that this? Boo. Note how the track is tilted and then he DROPs the "motor rotor" onto the rails. Any high school physics graduates want to calculate the force produced on the pendulum? But before you get too hard on Banerjee, allow me to point out that this IS on the right track in spite of his experimental incompetence. Jefimenko has shown that Newton's Third law is invalid for certain electromagnetics. This can be the basis of the Internal Force Engine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web