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

Groups > sci.physics > #642955 > unrolled thread

Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:52 -0700
    Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:33 -0700
      Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-27 22:32 -0700
        Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-27 22:40 -0700
          Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-27 23:05 -0700
            Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 23:21 -0700
    Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:40 +0000
      Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 05:01 -0700
        Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 12:37 +0000
          Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 05:39 -0700
            Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:16 -0500
            Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-31 09:51 -0700
              Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 18:38 -0700
                Re: Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 11:00 -0500

#642955 — Nuclear bombs as the greatest demonstration of internal force and easily explained with the kinetic mass energy relationship e=0.5mVVN(N-k)

> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 

The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
Which is non-destructive of matter. 
e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
power. 
Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
they are WRONG. 
The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
and very powerfully. 

Cheers, 
Arindam Banerjee 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#642982

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:52:19 AM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> > would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> 
> The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> power. 
> Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> they are WRONG. 
> The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> and very powerfully. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Arindam Banerjee

So there is no doubt that the equation e=0.5mVVN(N-k) explains explosions of
all sorts.

But can it be used to make new motors that can accelerate with internal force?

The thing about explosions is, that the internal forces are directed at all
angles equally.

So no explosion can lead to the violation of inertia.

However, if we find an effect that directs the internal force along one
direction, then we have the anti-gravity effect.

Which is what I have been investigating for the last five years.

The Lorenz force does not have a reaction.

Which is just great, but goes against our knowledge of motors starting from
steam engines where the pressures were applied equally, and why not, given 
the kinetic theory of gases.

But electricity is another thing. I have gone into some detail there, and the
following videos should be useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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

#643051

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 3:33:22 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:52:19 AM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> > > would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> > 
> > The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> > Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> > e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> > Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> > and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> > be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> > in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> > print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> > e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> > The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> > All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> > power. 
> > Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> > Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> > Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> > they are WRONG. 
> > The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> > of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> > energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> > and very powerfully. 
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > Arindam Banerjee
> 
> So there is no doubt that the equation e=0.5mVVN(N-k) explains explosions of
> all sorts.
> 
> But can it be used to make new motors that can accelerate with internal force?
> 
> The thing about explosions is, that the internal forces are directed at all
> angles equally.
> 
> So no explosion can lead to the violation of inertia.
> 
> However, if we find an effect that directs the internal force along one
> direction, then we have the anti-gravity effect.
> 
> Which is what I have been investigating for the last five years.
> 
> The Lorenz force does not have a reaction.
> 
> Which is just great, but goes against our knowledge of motors starting from
> steam engines where the pressures were applied equally, and why not, given 
> the kinetic theory of gases.
> 
> But electricity is another thing. I have gone into some detail there, and the
> following videos should be useful.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
> IFE - 8 New Physics
> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
==========================
very innovative   cleaver and interesting ~~~~!!

Y.Porat
=============================

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

#643052

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:33:03 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 3:33:22 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:52:19 AM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> > > > would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> > > 
> > > The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> > > Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> > > e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> > > Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> > > and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> > > be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> > > in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> > > print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> > > e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> > > The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> > > All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> > > power. 
> > > Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> > > Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> > > Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> > > they are WRONG. 
> > > The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> > > of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> > > energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> > > and very powerfully. 
> > > 
> > > Cheers, 
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> > 
> > So there is no doubt that the equation e=0.5mVVN(N-k) explains explosions of
> > all sorts.
> > 
> > But can it be used to make new motors that can accelerate with internal force?
> > 
> > The thing about explosions is, that the internal forces are directed at all
> > angles equally.
> > 
> > So no explosion can lead to the violation of inertia.
> > 
> > However, if we find an effect that directs the internal force along one
> > direction, then we have the anti-gravity effect.
> > 
> > Which is what I have been investigating for the last five years.
> > 
> > The Lorenz force does not have a reaction.
> > 
> > Which is just great, but goes against our knowledge of motors starting from
> > steam engines where the pressures were applied equally, and why not, given 
> > the kinetic theory of gases.
> > 
> > But electricity is another thing. I have gone into some detail there, and the
> > following videos should be useful.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
> > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
> > IFE - 8 New Physics
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> ==========================
> very innovative   cleaver and interesting ~~~~!!
> 
> Y.Porat
> =============================
oh  yes !!
In a  quick second thought !
we and you forgot !!
that in that experiment 
the 'Win of energy 
WAS NOT FOR NOTHING '

WE  FORGOT THAT YOU **INVESTED ENERGY** IN IT !!
ITR WAS BY THE DRILL MACHINE THAT
INVESTED RPTATION    EMERGY !!!
--ATB
Y.Porat
====================================

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

#643057

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:41:04 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:33:03 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 3:33:22 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:52:19 AM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> > > > > would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> > > > 
> > > > The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> > > > Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> > > > e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> > > > Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> > > > and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> > > > be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> > > > in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> > > > print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> > > > e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> > > > The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> > > > All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> > > > power. 
> > > > Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> > > > Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> > > > Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> > > > they are WRONG. 
> > > > The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> > > > of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> > > > energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> > > > and very powerfully. 
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers, 
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > 
> > > So there is no doubt that the equation e=0.5mVVN(N-k) explains explosions of
> > > all sorts.
> > > 
> > > But can it be used to make new motors that can accelerate with internal force?
> > > 
> > > The thing about explosions is, that the internal forces are directed at all
> > > angles equally.
> > > 
> > > So no explosion can lead to the violation of inertia.
> > > 
> > > However, if we find an effect that directs the internal force along one
> > > direction, then we have the anti-gravity effect.
> > > 
> > > Which is what I have been investigating for the last five years.
> > > 
> > > The Lorenz force does not have a reaction.
> > > 
> > > Which is just great, but goes against our knowledge of motors starting from
> > > steam engines where the pressures were applied equally, and why not, given 
> > > the kinetic theory of gases.
> > > 
> > > But electricity is another thing. I have gone into some detail there, and the
> > > following videos should be useful.
> > > 
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
> > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
> > > 
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
> > > IFE - 8 New Physics
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> > ==========================
> > very innovative   cleaver and interesting ~~~~!!
> > 
> > Y.Porat
> > =============================
> oh  yes !!
> In a  quick second thought !
> we and you forgot !!
> that in that experiment 
> the 'Win of energy 
> WAS NOT FOR NOTHING '
> 
> WE  FORGOT THAT YOU **INVESTED ENERGY** IN IT !!
> ITR WAS BY THE DRILL MACHINE THAT
> INVESTED RPTATION    EMERGY !!!
> --ATB
> Y.Porat
> ====================================
=================================
now in a few minutes later 
something else cam to my mind

your' magic' experiment 
can be a beginning of a prove 
to my 
Y CIRCLON   MECHAMISM' !!
ie
we see first that
GRAVITY ON YOUR 'FLYING WEAL 
DOES NOT DEOPEND ONLY ONM THE GRAVITATION OF EARTH !!!

(curvature schmervature of space !)

''BUT AS WELL DEPENDENT BY OUR 'TESTED MASS' !!
IOW
THE ACTED MASS (your weal  IS NOT ALWAYS PASIVE !!!!
IT CAN HAVE SOME ACTIVE INFLUENCE ON EARTH S 
MUTUAL REACTION !!
BETWEN EARTH AND TESTD MASS
 
OR IN OTHEER WORDS 
IT IS A PHENOMENON OF 
EARTH *****AND!!!! MASS**  ACTIVITY !!!
AND THAT IS EXACTLY MY
Y CIRCLON  MECHANISM !!!!!!

just have a second look at my 
''Y Circlon mechanism'' 

at the appendix of my site 
Google 
the y porat model - an abstract 
==
TIA
Y.Porat
====================================

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

#643061

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:05:50 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:41:04 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:33:03 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 3:33:22 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:52:19 AM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> > > > > > would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> > > > > Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> > > > > e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> > > > > Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> > > > > and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> > > > > be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> > > > > in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> > > > > print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> > > > > e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> > > > > The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> > > > > All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> > > > > power. 
> > > > > Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> > > > > Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> > > > > Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> > > > > they are WRONG. 
> > > > > The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> > > > > of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> > > > > energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> > > > > and very powerfully. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers, 
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > 
> > > > So there is no doubt that the equation e=0.5mVVN(N-k) explains explosions of
> > > > all sorts.
> > > > 
> > > > But can it be used to make new motors that can accelerate with internal force?
> > > > 
> > > > The thing about explosions is, that the internal forces are directed at all
> > > > angles equally.
> > > > 
> > > > So no explosion can lead to the violation of inertia.
> > > > 
> > > > However, if we find an effect that directs the internal force along one
> > > > direction, then we have the anti-gravity effect.
> > > > 
> > > > Which is what I have been investigating for the last five years.
> > > > 
> > > > The Lorenz force does not have a reaction.
> > > > 
> > > > Which is just great, but goes against our knowledge of motors starting from
> > > > steam engines where the pressures were applied equally, and why not, given 
> > > > the kinetic theory of gases.
> > > > 
> > > > But electricity is another thing. I have gone into some detail there, and the
> > > > following videos should be useful.
> > > > 
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
> > > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
> > > > 
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
> > > > IFE - 8 New Physics
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > ==========================
> > > very innovative   cleaver and interesting ~~~~!!
> > > 
> > > Y.Porat
> > > =============================
> > oh  yes !!
> > In a  quick second thought !
> > we and you forgot !!
> > that in that experiment 
> > the 'Win of energy 
> > WAS NOT FOR NOTHING '
> > 
> > WE  FORGOT THAT YOU **INVESTED ENERGY** IN IT !!
> > ITR WAS BY THE DRILL MACHINE THAT
> > INVESTED RPTATION    EMERGY !!!
> > --ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ====================================
> =================================
> now in a few minutes later 
> something else cam to my mind
> 
> your' magic' experiment 
> can be a beginning of a prove 
> to my 
> Y CIRCLON   MECHAMISM' !!
> ie
> we see first that
> GRAVITY ON YOUR 'FLYING WEAL 
> DOES NOT DEOPEND ONLY ONM THE GRAVITATION OF EARTH !!!
> 
> (curvature schmervature of space !)
> 
> ''BUT AS WELL DEPENDENT BY OUR 'TESTED MASS' !!
> IOW
> THE ACTED MASS (your weal  IS NOT ALWAYS PASIVE !!!!
> IT CAN HAVE SOME ACTIVE INFLUENCE ON EARTH S 
> MUTUAL REACTION !!
> BETWEN EARTH AND TESTD MASS
>  
> OR IN OTHEER WORDS 
> IT IS A PHENOMENON OF 
> EARTH *****AND!!!! MASS**  ACTIVITY !!!
> AND THAT IS EXACTLY MY
> Y CIRCLON  MECHANISM !!!!!!
> 
> just have a second look at my 
> ''Y Circlon mechanism'' 
> 
> at the appendix of my site 
> Google 
> the y porat model - an abstract 
> ==
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ====================================

Keep on listening, Porat. I don't know about your invention. I want to make
new motors that will replace jet engines and rockets.

Of course, I will need all the help I can get for that.

Once my thoughts are a bit more clear, I have to enter bravely the unknown
business area.

Which none of my ancestors ever dreamed of entering, so I am in the midst of
some apprehension.

But as it is said, with the help of friends one can do anything.

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

#643567

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
>> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> 
> The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 

Then I want to see your calculated yields for a barely critical mass of
plutonium. I'm willing to bet you're going to find a factor of about a
million that you're going to need over typical chemical reaction yields. 

Put your numbers where your mouth is. 

> e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> power. 
> Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> they are WRONG. 
> The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> and very powerfully. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Arindam Banerjee 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#643573

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:40:28 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> >> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> > 
> > The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> > Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> > e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> > Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> > and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> > be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> > in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> > print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> 
> Then I want to see your calculated yields for a barely critical mass of
> plutonium. I'm willing to bet you're going to find a factor of about a
> million that you're going to need over typical chemical reaction yields. 
> 
> Put your numbers where your mouth is. 

In due course. It is not difficult. 
v is the speed of velocity addition
N is the number of hits
k is the efficiency factor very high for explosions that is say 1
M is the averaged mass moved by the explosion

One can put in the values and see how things match with nukes, chemicals
and matches.

Hint: v and N are much higher for nukes than for chemical explosions.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> 
> > e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> > The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> > All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> > power. 
> > Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> > Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> > Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> > they are WRONG. 
> > The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> > of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> > energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> > and very powerfully. 
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > Arindam Banerjee 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#643584

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:40:28 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
>>>> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
>>> 
>>> The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
>>> Which is non-destructive of matter. 
>>> e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
>>> Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
>>> and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
>>> be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
>>> in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
>>> print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
>> 
>> Then I want to see your calculated yields for a barely critical mass of
>> plutonium. I'm willing to bet you're going to find a factor of about a
>> million that you're going to need over typical chemical reaction yields. 
>> 
>> Put your numbers where your mouth is. 
> 
> In due course. It is not difficult. 
> v is the speed of velocity addition
> N is the number of hits
> k is the efficiency factor very high for explosions that is say 1
> M is the averaged mass moved by the explosion
> 
> One can put in the values and see how things match with nukes, chemicals
> and matches.

Do it. This is the heart and soul of actually doing science -- doing these
calculations and quantitative comparisons. 
Those who decline are mere pretenders. 

> 
> Hint: v and N are much higher for nukes than for chemical explosions.
> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>> 
>>> e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
>>> The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
>>> All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
>>> power. 
>>> Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
>>> Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
>>> Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
>>> they are WRONG. 
>>> The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
>>> of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
>>> energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
>>> and very powerfully. 
>>> 
>>> Cheers, 
>>> Arindam Banerjee 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#643588

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:37:25 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:40:28 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> >>>> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> >>> 
> >>> The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> >>> Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> >>> e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> >>> Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> >>> and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> >>> be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> >>> in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> >>> print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> >> 
> >> Then I want to see your calculated yields for a barely critical mass of
> >> plutonium. I'm willing to bet you're going to find a factor of about a
> >> million that you're going to need over typical chemical reaction yields. 
> >> 
> >> Put your numbers where your mouth is. 
> > 
> > In due course. It is not difficult. 
> > v is the speed of velocity addition
> > N is the number of hits
> > k is the efficiency factor very high for explosions that is say 1
> > M is the averaged mass moved by the explosion
> > 
> > One can put in the values and see how things match with nukes, chemicals
> > and matches.
> 
> Do it. This is the heart and soul of actually doing science -- doing these
> calculations and quantitative comparisons. 
> Those who decline are mere pretenders. 

Those who do not try on their own are cowards.
> 
> > 
> > Hint: v and N are much higher for nukes than for chemical explosions.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> >> 
> >>> e=mcc got the credit wrongly. 
> >>> The world is very badly screwed up as a result. 
> >>> All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no 
> >>> power. 
> >>> Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb. 
> >>> Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster. 
> >>> Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically 
> >>> they are WRONG. 
> >>> The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations 
> >>> of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary 
> >>> energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast 
> >>> and very powerfully. 
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers, 
> >>> Arindam Banerjee 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#643616

On 7/31/17 7:39 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:37:25 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:40:28 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it
>>>>>> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect.
>>>>> Which is non-destructive of matter.
>>>>> e=mcc had nothing to do with it.
>>>>> Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches
>>>>> and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can
>>>>> be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered
>>>>> in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the
>>>>> print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k).
>>>>
>>>> Then I want to see your calculated yields for a barely critical mass of
>>>> plutonium. I'm willing to bet you're going to find a factor of about a
>>>> million that you're going to need over typical chemical reaction yields.
>>>>
>>>> Put your numbers where your mouth is.
>>>
>>> In due course. It is not difficult.
>>> v is the speed of velocity addition
>>> N is the number of hits
>>> k is the efficiency factor very high for explosions that is say 1
>>> M is the averaged mass moved by the explosion
>>>
>>> One can put in the values and see how things match with nukes, chemicals
>>> and matches.
>>
>> Do it. This is the heart and soul of actually doing science -- doing these
>> calculations and quantitative comparisons.
>> Those who decline are mere pretenders.
> 
> Those who do not try on their own are cowards.

Dude, it's YOUR theory. The originator of the theory, at least in 
science, is morally obligated to perform the calculations in critical 
cases to demonstrate the viability of the theory. This is a universal 
thing. Newton did it. You are required to do it.

Those who decline to do this in support of their own ideas are not 
really scientists.

Bluster away, Arindam. You've been handed a shovel and at the moment 
you're digging yourself furiously into a hole.

>>
>>>
>>> Hint: v and N are much higher for nukes than for chemical explosions.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>>>
>>>>> e=mcc got the credit wrongly.
>>>>> The world is very badly screwed up as a result.
>>>>> All the e=mcc frauds flourish, with their lies, and honest people have no
>>>>> power.
>>>>> Heuristics was responsible for the atom bomb.
>>>>> Intelligent monkeys fooling around, found the best way to create disaster.
>>>>> Yes they are intelligent and hard-working devils, no doubt, but theoretically
>>>>> they are WRONG.
>>>>> The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the most powerful direct demonstrations
>>>>> of internal force being velocity added (as I put it) to create extraordinary
>>>>> energy as the velocity addition is happening at the nuclear level very fast
>>>>> and very powerfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#643630

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:39:35 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:37:25 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:40:28 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> > >>>> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> > >>> Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> > >>> e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> > >>> Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> > >>> and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> > >>> be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> > >>> in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> > >>> print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> > >> 
> > >> Then I want to see your calculated yields for a barely critical mass of
> > >> plutonium. I'm willing to bet you're going to find a factor of about a
> > >> million that you're going to need over typical chemical reaction yields. 
> > >> 
> > >> Put your numbers where your mouth is. 
> > > 
> > > In due course. It is not difficult. 
> > > v is the speed of velocity addition
> > > N is the number of hits
> > > k is the efficiency factor very high for explosions that is say 1
> > > M is the averaged mass moved by the explosion
> > > 
> > > One can put in the values and see how things match with nukes, chemicals
> > > and matches.
> > 
> > Do it. This is the heart and soul of actually doing science -- doing these
> > calculations and quantitative comparisons. 
> > Those who decline are mere pretenders. 
> 
> Those who do not try on their own are cowards.
============================
Yet Arindam 
not any guess   of yours 
is going to be verified

just be ready to find  out that
in that way
most !!
of your
'wild '  guesses will fail 
you must first 'learn about the existing knowledge
-----
Newton said once :

''I COULD SEE FURTHER AWAY
-BECAUSE I WAS STABDING ON THE SHOUDERS OF GIANTS !!
------ 

ATB
Y.Porat
========================

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

#643753

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 2:51:33 AM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:39:35 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:37:25 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:40:28 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> It should tell you something that the bomb did in fact work, which it 
> > > >>>> would not have done if E=mc^2 was wrong. 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> The bomb worked because of the natural/artificial radioactivity effect. 
> > > >>> Which is non-destructive of matter. 
> > > >>> e=mcc had nothing to do with it. 
> > > >>> Like every mass-energy relationship, the atom bomb (just as H-bomb and matches 
> > > >>> and chemical bombs and solar energy and also the internal force engine) can 
> > > >>> be explained with the kinetically derived mass-energy relationship I discovered 
> > > >>> in 1999, published in Usenet in Jan 2000 and saw the light of day in the 
> > > >>> print world in 2003. It is 0.5mVVN(N-k). 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Then I want to see your calculated yields for a barely critical mass of
> > > >> plutonium. I'm willing to bet you're going to find a factor of about a
> > > >> million that you're going to need over typical chemical reaction yields. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Put your numbers where your mouth is. 
> > > > 
> > > > In due course. It is not difficult. 
> > > > v is the speed of velocity addition
> > > > N is the number of hits
> > > > k is the efficiency factor very high for explosions that is say 1
> > > > M is the averaged mass moved by the explosion
> > > > 
> > > > One can put in the values and see how things match with nukes, chemicals
> > > > and matches.
> > > 
> > > Do it. This is the heart and soul of actually doing science -- doing these
> > > calculations and quantitative comparisons. 
> > > Those who decline are mere pretenders. 
> > 
> > Those who do not try on their own are cowards.
> ============================
> Yet Arindam 
> not any guess   of yours 
> is going to be verified
> 
> just be ready to find  out that
> in that way
> most !!
> of your
> 'wild '  guesses will fail 
> you must first 'learn about the existing knowledge
> -----
> Newton said once :
> 
> ''I COULD SEE FURTHER AWAY
> -BECAUSE I WAS STABDING ON THE SHOUDERS OF GIANTS !!
> ------ 
> 
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ========================

Yes, I am following the great Newton and am on his shoulders, and also on 
the shoulders of Maxwell, JJ Thomson and Heaviside. I am also relying upon the
great engineers who made wonderful electronics and software in the 20th
century. And the great scientists who did a lot of wonderful experimental
work to find out about the basic structure of matter, the mathematicians, 
managers, businessmen, and even some politicians. 

I respect all good and sound people.

But since e=mcc is wrong, that is a filter. Whoever acts upon the correctness
of e=mcc as a basis has to be wrong. Whatever depends upon e=mcc has to be
thrown out.

A lot of great work has been done without e=mcc coming in, and that I respect
highly.

But this pernicious doctrine has corrupted physics thoroughly, and also created
a class of entrenched crooks stifling new developments.

This is an unacceptable situation and I am fighting against it the best way
I can.

My aphorisms should lay the ground work and also explain the experiments I 
made with clarity and conviction.  

And then I expect to get funding to make new motors that will replace the
jet engines and rockets.  I hope that happens soon. But that is a business 
matter and not a physics matter. I cannot pretend I am any good at business!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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

#644008

On 7/31/17 8:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> And then I expect to get funding to make new motors that will replace the
> jet engines and rockets.  I hope that happens soon. But that is a business
> matter and not a physics matter. I cannot pretend I am any good at business!

And so why would anyone give you money to fund a business that you have 
just acknowledged you would be incompetent to run? Hmmmmm.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web