> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > In article <4ab952ec-e383-4cef-8a5b-f650a7c0c...@t7g2000pbp.googlegroups.=
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > This movie project formally began many years ago when I
> > > > posted the following article by Arindam Banerjee from
> > > > Outlook Magazine:
> > > > Dynamics
> > > > Newt Is Old Hat
> > > > An Indian researcher challenges the First Law of Motion and unveils a
> > > > blueprint for perpetual motion machines
> > > > By Arindam Banerjee
> > > > Outlook Magazine
> > > > July 14, 2003
> > > > "What are you up to this time?" a friend asked me enthusiastically.
> > > > He was referring to the recent articles in newspapers announcing that
> > > > an Indian had challenged Newton's First Law of Motion. I explained my
> > > > ideas to him as best I could, dwelling on the issue that if my
> > > > mathematical derivation for unlimited energy -- and the thought
> > > > structure underlying it -- had been published two centuries ago, the
> > > > history of the world could have been quite different. If my theories
> > > > are proved right, with experiment, we could have unlimited energy
> > > > without needing to burn fossil fuel or radioactivity, and travel to
> > > > the stars, within 10-50 years.
> > > > I had first presented them to the world via the Usenet in January
> > > > 2000, and had published my book To the Stars! on our 'adda' family
> > > > website in September 2000. To my great relief, no one ever accused me
> > > > of lack of originality! Lively exchanges with those interested -- all
> > > > around the world -- led to no conclusion about the correctness of my
> > > > ideas, save that further work was required to prove them. I agreed
> > > > heartily. I was, however, truly on my own. At that stage (around May
> > > > 2001), my parents came for a visit and my father was keenly
> > > > appreciative of my work, understanding its potential. He undertook to
> > > > give my ideas publicity. Personally, I was hesitant to approach the
> > > > media before doing the proper experiments but my father pointed out
> > > > that as things were, I could never realise the resources to prove my
> > > > ideas conclusively one way or the other. I realised his success when
> > > > phone calls came from unknown people, congratulating me.
> > > > "Whatever led you to start thinking this way?," was the first
> > > > question. The heavenly bodies, of course! How could we get there?
> > > > Conventional ideas in physics force us upon this planet, forever.
> > > > Biochemist-turned-science fiction writer Isaac Asimov deemed it so --
> > > > it is impossible to construct a rocket ship to the stars (the fuel
> > > > tank would have to be much larger than the earth!). Further,
> > > > Einstein's assumptions underlying his Special Theory of Relativity,
> > > > which gave the world the famous equation e=3D3Dmc2, forbade it -- the
> > > > mass of any body approaching the speed of light would become near-
> > > > infinite, and thus incapable of further acceleration.
> > > > That seemed unfair to me. Why should the stars exist only to
> > > > tantalise us? There had to be a way to go there. Why couldn't we? Any
> > > > number of science fiction movies and novels showed flying saucers.
> > > > Our own Ramayana describes the vimaan, so the concept of pollution-
> > > > less travel without rockets is certainly there in the public's
> > > > imagination. So, why was there never any serious effort made to
> > > > actually make or even theorise about the possible technology of
> > > > vimaans?
> > > > Newton's first law of motion (a body stays at rest or travels at a
> > > > constant speed in a straight line with respect to an initial
> > > > reference unless affected by an external force) does not support the
> > > > existence of vimaans, as vimaans can accelerate without external
> > > > force. So its functioning cannot but disprove the First Law -- which
> > > > in turn revises many others dear to physicists. Newton's third law of
> > > > motion (to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction)
> > > > seems to make any internal activity ultimately futile. For, any force
> > > > generated completely within a body (internal force, let us say) has
> > > > an equal and opposite counterpart.
> > > > Thus, overall, there will be cancellation of forces and the body
> > > > simply cannot move, unless an external force is applied. So, no
> > > > object can move with internal force -- hence, vimaans or flying
> > > > saucers can reside solely within the imagination. Let us assume, for
> > > > argument's sake, that Newton's First Law is wrong -- that is, a body
> > > > can move using its internal force, generated by expenditure of its
> > > > internal energy, and clever engineering processes. Then the
> > > > consequences become very interesting. If the body increases its
> > > > velocity 'v' as a result of an internally induced acceleration 'a'
> > > > over a time period 't', then no matter what its initial velocity
> > > > (with respect to any initial reference), its final speed will be that
> > > > initial velocity plus 'v'.
> > > > Thus, if v=3D3D20 km/hr, the same amount of internal energy has to be
> > > > spent to raise the speed from say 100 km/hr to 120 km/hr, as to raise
> > > > the speed from 1,000 km/hr to 1020 km/hr.
> > > > Consider a body on a frictionless surface. You are in a vehicle
> > > > beside it, and you want to move the body at the same speed as your
> > > > vehicle. You give a push, and the body accelerates till it reaches
> > > > say 10 km/hr and then keeps on sliding. You speed your vehicle to 10
> > > > km/hr, and then give the body a push using the same force as earlier.
> > > > The body then reaches 20 km/hr and you speed up your vehicle
> > > > correspondingly for the next push.
> > > > So, with the same expenditure of energy every time, you can push the
> > > > body to as high a speed as you can reach with your vehicle. The
> > > > forces exerted here were external to the body, but they could have
> > > > been internal and generated by internal energy, by our assumption of
> > > > Newton's first law being wrong.
> > > > Let the percentage of internal energy 'E' converted to kinetic energy
> > > > be 'k' (k is less than 1), so kE =3D3D 0.5mvv, where 'm' is the mass =
> > > > the body and 'v' the increase in speed over time 't'. In time, T,
> > > > where T =3D3D Nt, the internal energy required to speed the mass to t=
> > > > speed Nv will be EN, while the kinetic energy of the body, with
> > > > reference to the initial reference (where v was 0) will be
> > > > 0.5m(Nv)(Nv). Now EN =3D3D 0.5mvvN/k, so the maximum extra free energ=
> > > > with reference to the initial reference, that can be obtained will be
> > > > 0.5mvvN (N - 1/k). Note that N can be as high as design
> > > > considerations will permit. Let some engineering device convert as
> > > > much of the body's kinetic energy as possible to, say, electrical
> > > > energy, and then use a fraction for its effective internal energy.
> > > > The balance electrical energy is up for consumption.
> > > > We thus have a generator that produces power indefinitely without
> > > > needing any external source. This apparently breaks the law of
> > > > conservation of energy, but actually reduces it to a special case,
> > > > applicable where "velocity addition" effects as described earlier do
> > > > not occur. When such a generator is used to drive a vehicle using
> > > > internal force, we have a spaceship to the stars. (And an explanation
> > > > for the internal energy naturally emitted by the stars, and
> > > > artificially from N-bombs?) A constant acceleration of g, or nearly
> > > > 10 m/sec/sec, would let it reach light speed in a year, twice light
> > > > speed in two years.
> > > > After that, it would turn around to face the earth, and then keep on
> > > > "accelerating" towards the earth, effectively decelerating towards
> > > > the star. So it looks like a return trip could take 10 years, using
> > > > purely Newtonian mechanics, and ignoring any possible consequences of
> > > > Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. In any case, such a vehicle
> > > > could go on land, on sea, in water, in air, as well as space. Its
> > > > engine could give energy anywhere, and thus, truly open the universe
> > > > to mankind.
> > > > That's all very well, a physicist would say, but what about Newton's
> > > > first law of motion? Let's see how we can shake it up, before we find
> > > > ways to break it. Consider a closed box in outer space. An
> > > > electrically powered robot starts accelerating from one end till it
> > > > reaches around the middle of the box, then it decelerates to a stop
> > > > at the other end of it. As it accelerates, it pushes the box in a
> > > > direction opposite to its travel, and so the box also accelerates.
> > > > When the robot decelerates, the box also decelerates, and comes to a
> > > > stop. To an external observer, the box has certainly moved without
> > > > any external force, and so Newton's First Law has at least been
> > > > shaken. If the robot had continued to accelerate and banged against
> > > > the other side, that impact would have brought the box to a sudden
> > > > stop. If it had gone straight through, the box would keep on moving,
> > > > behaving like a rocket expelling mass.
> > > > Suppose through some engineering means, we make the robot just about
> > > > to hit the rear side of the box transfer most of its kinetic energy
> > > > to another robot stationed at the rear side. The second robot thus
> > > > moves with the same velocity along the box and hits the front side,
> > > > thereby transferring its kinetic energy to the whole box, making it
> > > > attain a higher velocity. This may look impossible, but let us not
> > > > forget that unlike force, energy is a scalar quantity with no sense
> > > > of direction, and can change its form.
> > > > In my book, To the Stars!, I have envisioned the above approaches in
> > > > detail, using currents in electromagnets to accelerate a mass, and a
> > > > hydraulic system to transfer the energy of the mass, from one to the
> > > > other going in the opposite direction. Probably a simpler method,
> > > > using two balanced masses connected rigidly, and involving "energy
> > > > reversal" with angular momentum, may be found more suitable.
> > > > I believe there is a pressing need for experimentation in this vital
> > > > area. We should not take things for granted, blindly following the
> > > > accepted laws of physics and conclude from such ancient theory alone
> > > > that all internal activity in a closed space must necessarily
> > > > dissipate into heat, as opposed to overall motion. The fate of
> > > > mankind, and the health of this world, depends upon the favourable
> > > > outcome of such experiments.
> > > > (The author, an IIT alumnus [IIT degree obtained by fraud according
> > > > to his own confession. - JM], worked with Bharat Electronics,
> > > > Ghaziabad, for 11 years, moved to Telstra Research Labs, Melbourne,
> > > > in 1989. He can be contacted on e-mail . This is an abridged version,
> > > > full text...)
> > > > More at:
> > > >http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?220728#comments
> > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > Om Shanti
> > > > o o o
> > > > About the terrorist Goon Squad:
> > > > "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
> > > > <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
> > > > telling others what and when to post, where to post and
> > > > where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
> > > > others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
> > > > fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
> > > > lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
> > > > <u...@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
> > > > is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
> > > > heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
> > > > Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <josh...@gmail.com> who
> > > > displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
> > > > the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <bh...@hotmail.com>
> > > > The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
> > > > through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
> > > > else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
> > > > favorite now is "fanab...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
> > > > and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
> > > > from "fana...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
> > > > many years. -Updated on February 2, 2012-
> > > Thanks for reposting this article. =A0Yes, this was the original articl=
> > > in print, in the science section of Outlook India in July 2003, that
> > > was read by many. =A0In Usenet I had presented the work in around 1999,
> > > and in 2000 wrote the book "To the Stars!" which was on Internet for
> > > many years.
> > That book is still accessible.
> > > Since then, I have found out exactly how e=3D3Dmcc is wrong (in 2005 I
> > > wrote a paper on that), and found out what could be good practical
> > > ways of making IFEs.
> > > I did not think that I would get as much opposition and abuse as I
> > > have received, when I wrote that paper.
> > > But, life goes on.
> > > Thanks again, Jai.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> > You are welcome.
> > "Chase the protagonist up a tree, throw rocks at the
> > tree, and set the tree on fire" is an axiomatic
> > ingredient of the three-act structure. I have tried to
> > stay true to it in the timeline of my posts about you and
> > the pages of my screenplay.
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
> Great, the sympathy from the public is highly required.