Re: New movie - 'Defend Arindam!'

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 12, 5:47 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:24 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
>
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> > > > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > > > > > > I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is withholding
> > > > > > > > the proprietary components of his work from disclosure in
> > > > > > > > public.
>
> > > > > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > > > Om Shanti
>
> > > > > > > I am sure the honest and intelligent members of the public already
> > > > > > > know a great deal of my work, even the details.
>
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
>
> > > > > > That seems to suggest that you have already revealed some
> > > > > > proprietary information related to your work.
>
> > > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > Om Shanti
>
> > > > > I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" and in many usenet
> > > > > articles since. =A0I have copyright over them, I believe. =A0One cannot
> > > > > patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as I understand that
> > > > > since one is liable for for what one writes under one's own name in
> > > > > the public arena, no one else can take the credit or discredit.
>
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
>
> > > > I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyright to be
> > > > correct, generally.
>
> > > > So you haven't released actual designs with descriptions,
> > > > as would be rewuired for a patent application, to the
> > > > general public, have you?
>
> > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > Om Shanti
>
> > > True, the work  I have disclosed is not patent quality, as it relates
> > > to ideas and theories that cannot be patented.  To get a patent, one
> > > must have a new method or
> > > product.  Based upon new ideas, etc. one can make new methods and
> > > products.
>
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
>
> > What all will it take to get the projects to patent and
> > prototype state, if not funding alone? This is probably a
> > repeat question so apologies.
>
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>
> Probably just a tad more than required to patent his prototype flying
> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate on the  same
> psychic  physics principle that powers  his internal force engine.

Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundrels pose as
dishonest dullards, in order to extricate information!
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion dollar
note and very fortunately some
loose change as well.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 12, 2:52 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:08 am, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.

>
> Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is withholding
> > the proprietary components of his work from disclosure in
> > public.
>
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> Arindam  claims that he has revealed everything in  his
> "publications"  including his  posts to ngs.

Not everything, but a great deal including the seminal ideas.

He believes (IMO
> mistakenly) that "ideas" expressed in them will be protected by
> copyright law. My understanding is that copy-write  protects the
> textual expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. What do
> you think?

The whole point is that unscrupulous people cannot steal my ideas as
they are original and I have
expressed them in public space first. While they may love to, they
may also open
themselves to strong legal action.

> He admits that his internal force is merely an "idea" that is not
> supported by empirical evidence but will be validated by observations
> obtained in a research program not yet proposed!

I have said that internal force explains matter and energy
interactions most clearly and intuitively, and that the formula
derived e=0.5mVVN(N-k) replaces
e=mcc which is based upon pure and proven nonsense and bungling. What
I am saying is that experiments will be needed to prove the validity
of this formula beyond any doubt, and yes, I am in no mood to provide
details of same, seeing the way I have been treated by the
establishment.

Essentially, he
> claims that a body in a state of rest relative to itself (zero
> velocity) utilizes  internal energy (Banerjeerian) to  produce the
> greater external  kinetic energy (Newtonian) endowed by the motion of
> the  body relative to an external body.  That is, a yet to be
> discovered Banerjeerian 'physics' allows the body in motion to
> alternate between it's internal (no motion) and external (motion)
> inertial frames of reference.

A stupid and wrong, twisted statement. What I have written, anyone
with wits and honesty can understand. To repeat yet again:

I am saying that if a body can accelerate with internal force (not
being in touch with
earth, water or air that provide external force ) then yes with
respect to any initial frame of reference it should,
with mathematical prediction, gain more kinetic energy with respect to
that frame of
reference, than was consumed with the internal energy required to
attain that velocity. Perhaps there are many who cannot understand
this, being challenged in physics and elementary algebra. But to
twist it around, instead of addressing it as stated, is pure
dishonesty - not that I expect anything else from Zinnic & co.

So mathematically, with respect to initial frame of reference v=0,
after N bursts of internal energy the velocity of the craft is Nv and
the kinetic energy 0.5mNNVV.
The internal energy spent is the same per hit, so that is
kNE=kN0.5mVV. Thus the surplus energy is e=0.5mVVN(N-k), where k is
an inverse efficiency factor greater than 1.

> One wonders whether the Banerjeerian idea of alternating frames of
> reference might be used as a definitive demonstration of the
> mysterious 'action at a distance' of  objects moving relative to each
> other.

The frames of reference do not alternate - this is a mendacious Zinnic
construction, dishonest as usual. An Internal Force Engine of the
kind I want to make is like a rocket without any emission of matter
(gases). It is more like powering a flying saucer (believe it or not
about flying saucers, but that is what it will be like).

> For example, if you and I are in relatve motion, each could move the
> other out of a dangerous situation danger simply by alternating our
> frames of reference!

Certainly you could, if you maneuver physically. That is done all the
time. Basketball players, football plays, avoid dangerous situations
by swerving, braking, acclerating, etc. thus automatically changing
their instantaneous frames of reference on a relative basis.
Maneuvering physically is what the Internal Force Engine does in
theory; it goes from one frame of reference to the next in steps of v,
following an application of internal force.

Contemplation of the profits we could make using
> Arindam's unprotected idea  makes me just giddy!

Ah well, chaps are thinking of making profits, without doing any
creative or hard work, just abusing and stealing! How greedy! Greed,
dishonesty, lying, twisting - now will the world let these sorts, who
abusive the creative people and try their best to deprive them and
persecute them, prosper?? Let us see! We still have law courts.

Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all

time, sole god among lotsa devils.

> Zinnic

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

ROTFL. Extricate what information? Per your daily bleats in five
different newsgroups, you've put out all the information on the
internet. So there's nothing more to add and nothing more to "extricate"
from the pile of horse manure masquerading as physics. However, one does
have to extricate the evil dung beetle and phony Hindu, Lady Kaka, who
keeps wallowing in horseshit. _That_ would be real service to humanity.

> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion dollar
> note and very fortunately some
> loose change as well.

Nice! Would you like to part with one trillion dollar note? [You can
keep the change]. I have a bridge for sale. It is "golden" too. That
investment will beat having to fork out cash to a chicken entrails
reader and "soothsayer" who writes imaginary Hollywood screenplays.
Note: the working title of the imaginary Hollywood iscreenplay is
"Defend Arindumb!", but the "real" title is "Befriend Arindumb (and His
Money)!"

--
VB, Ubetjotushy
'ome=shanty


-----
The Baboon Squad

Dr. Muckeraj, aka Lady Kaka, aka Kakadevi, aka The Old Cow of Hawaii,
and her faithful monkey, Fanabba, aka Poochie, are rabid evangelical
Christians. The Baboon Squad, as Kakadevi and Pooch call themselves,
hates Hindus, Muslims, and Catholics, and the US too, which makes them
copy-paste trash 24/7. The transgender idiot, Kakadevi, claims to be a
"scholar" of Sanskrit, but hasn't demonstrated any knowledge or mastery
of it. However, there is plenty of evidence of attempts made by
Macaulay's monkey to "doctor" original articles to pidginize Sanskrit
words, perhaps to send Sanskrit into the gutter. The "doctorate" that
Kakadevi claims to have is likely for copy-paste research on the myriad
applications of cowdung. Other than some stock phrases that are
copy-pasted regularly, the Cosmic Baboon has shown no originality or
creativity, nor has the monkey contributed anything of value to any
discussion. Macaulay's other monkey, who, apart from saying "ditto" to
Kaka's caca, has no other skills than spraying fire hydrants with raised
hindquarters.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 12, 2:46 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I meant, honest dullards.

> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion dollar
> note and very fortunately some

> loose change as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<16ceace3-a13e-4d19...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> On Jun 12, 2:46=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 5:47=A0am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 1:24=A0pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.

>>
>>> Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
>>
>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>> In article

>>>>>> <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com=

>>,
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>> <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroup=

> s.com>,
>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is withholding
>>>>>>>>>> the proprietary components of his work from disclosure in
>>>>>>>>>> public.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>> I am sure the honest and intelligent members of the public =

> already
>>>>>>>>> know a great deal of my work, even the details.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>>>> That seems to suggest that you have already revealed some
>>>>>>>> proprietary information related to your work.
>>
>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>> I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" and in many usen=
> et
>>>>>>> articles since. =3DA0I have copyright over them, I believe. =3D=
> A0One cannot
>>>>>>> patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as I understand th=
> at
>>>>>>> since one is liable for for what one writes under one's own nam=

> e in
>>>>>>> the public arena, no one else can take the credit or discredit.
>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>> I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyright to be
>>>>>> correct, generally.
>>
>>>>>> So you haven't released actual designs with descriptions,
>>>>>> as would be rewuired for a patent application, to the
>>>>>> general public, have you?
>>
>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>> True, the work =A0I have disclosed is not patent quality, as it relates
>>>>> to ideas and theories that cannot be patented. =A0To get a patent, one

>>>>> must have a new method or

>>>>> product. =A0Based upon new ideas, etc. one can make new methods and

>>>>> products.
>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>> What all will it take to get the projects to patent and
>>>> prototype state, if not funding alone? This is probably a
>>>> repeat question so apologies.
>>
>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>> Probably just a tad more than required to patent his prototype flying

>>> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate on the =A0same
>>> psychic =A0physics principle that powers =A0his internal force engine.

>>
>> Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundrels pose as
>> dishonest dullards, in order to extricate information!
>

>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
>> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion dollar
>> note and very fortunately some
>> loose change as well.
>

> I meant, honest dullards.

Dullards, honest or not, can receive an education.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
<KalluM...@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"
<us...@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" <jos...@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 "fana...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "fan...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
many years.
-Updated on February 2, 2012-

[Zinnic]

Yes, that is what I said.. The internal force engine acts by
alternating to and fro between "one internal frame of reference (0
velocity) to the next (increment of 0+v). But Arindam, the question
remains as to  how is the lower internal energy utilized by the body
in its two internal states(0 and v) transformed into the greater
external kinetic energy of the body in motion (inertial frame at Nv)
without switching from the two internal frames to the external
reference frame?

As you state above the  theory is entirely based on the conditional
"...IF a body CAN accelerate with internal force....". (my caps). The
patent office scientists need some evidence that this actually does
occur. They raised an objection by asking the silly question ......
"but what IF a body CANNOT accelerate by internal force.
Silly or not that required some response. I tried presenting your
analogy of the utilization of internal force in "kicking a medicine
ball in the gym" and your theoretical model of repeatedly "hitting a
vehicle with a second accelerating vehicle" but for some perverse
reason they were not convinced.
Be not discouraged, faith may reign triumphant. Onwards!
Hope this helps
Zinnic

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 13, 6:08 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article
> <16ceace3-a13e-4d19-b4d6-125de6565...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and they also want to
abuse and beat up the teachers.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> 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-- Hide quoted text -

[Arindam Banerjee]

Zinnic is twisting matters as usual, by using the term "alternating to
and fro"
The conceptual IFE progresses from 0,v,2v.3v... with internal energy
expended on internal force - that is, that it does not push back nor
emit matter. 0,v,2v is from the v=0 frame of reference.

But Arindam, the question
> remains as to  how is the lower internal energy utilized by the body
> in its two internal states(0 and v) transformed into the greater
> external kinetic energy of the body in motion (inertial frame at Nv)
> without switching from the two internal frames to the external
> reference frame?
>
> As you state above the  theory is entirely based on the conditional
> "...IF a body CAN accelerate with internal force....". (my caps). The
> patent office scientists need some evidence that this actually does
> occur. They raised an objection by asking the silly question ......
> "but what IF a body CANNOT accelerate by internal force.
> Silly or not that required some response. I tried presenting your
> analogy of the utilization of internal force in "kicking a medicine
> ball in the gym" and your theoretical model of repeatedly "hitting a
> vehicle with a second accelerating vehicle" but for some perverse
> reason they were not convinced.
> Be not discouraged, faith may reign triumphant. Onwards!
> Hope this helps

> Zinnic- Hide quoted text -

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<db24425d-2432-4840...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>> In article

>> <16ceace3-a13e-4d19-b4d6-125de6565...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:

>>> On Jun 12, 2:46=3DA0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 12, 5:47=3DA0am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

>>
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>> <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com,

>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>>>> <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroup=3D

>>> s.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is withholding
>>>>>>>>>>>> the proprietary components of his work from disclosure in
>>>>>>>>>>>> public.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure the honest and intelligent members of the public =3D

>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>> know a great deal of my work, even the details.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>>>>>> That seems to suggest that you have already revealed some
>>>>>>>>>> proprietary information related to your work.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>>>>>>>> I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" and in many usen=

> =3D
>>> et
>>>>>>>>> articles since. =3D3DA0I have copyright over them, I believe. =3D=
> 3D=3D

>>> A0One cannot
>>>>>>>>> patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as I understand th=

> =3D

>>> at
>>>>>>>>> since one is liable for for what one writes under one's own nam=

> =3D

>>> e in
>>>>>>>>> the public arena, no one else can take the credit or discredit.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>>>> I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyright to be
>>>>>>>> correct, generally.
>>
>>>>>>>> So you haven't released actual designs with descriptions,
>>>>>>>> as would be rewuired for a patent application, to the
>>>>>>>> general public, have you?
>>
>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>> True, the work =3DA0I have disclosed is not patent quality, as it r=
> elates
>>>>>>> to ideas and theories that cannot be patented. =3DA0To get a patent=

> , one
>>>>>>> must have a new method or

>>>>>>> product. =3DA0Based upon new ideas, etc. one can make new methods and

>>>>>>> products.
>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>> What all will it take to get the projects to patent and
>>>>>> prototype state, if not funding alone? This is probably a
>>>>>> repeat question so apologies.
>>
>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>>>> Probably just a tad more than required to patent his prototype flying

>>>>> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate on the =3DA0same
>>>>> psychic =3DA0physics principle that powers =3DA0his internal force engine.

>>
>>>> Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundrels pose as
>>>> dishonest dullards, in order to extricate information!
>>
>>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
>>>> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion dollar
>>>> note and very fortunately some
>>>> loose change as well.
>>
>>> I meant, honest dullards.
>>
>> Dullards, honest or not, can receive an education.
>>

>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>

> They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and they also
> want to abuse and beat up the teachers.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

But they will pay to watch an entertaining movie even if
it educates them. This is one of the reasons why I wrote
the screenplay.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)

<KalluM...@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"

<us...@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" <jos...@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 "fana...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"

and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are

from "fan...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 13, 9:02 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <db24425d-2432-4840-aad3-37b12fef2...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Dullards are solely interested in abusing, beating up, etc. so they
are not the ones who will pay to see a good movie. They want to
retain their dullness, grossness, stupidity all intact. However their
dullness does not prevent them from being racists and bigots - that is
the highest extent of whatever passes for idealism among the dullards.

>
> 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.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<f121f540-e9f6-4ccb...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > In article
> > <db24425d-2432-4840-aad3-37b12fef2...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > >> In article
> > >> <16ceace3-a13e-4d19-b4d6-125de6565...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:

> > >>> On Jun 12, 2:46=3D3DA0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:

> > >>>> On Jun 12, 5:47=3D3DA0am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
> >
> > >>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > >>>>>>>> In article
> > >>>>>>>> <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com,
> > >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > >>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> In article

> > >>>>>>>>>> <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> > >>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is withholding
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the proprietary components of his work from disclosure in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> public.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > >>>>>>>>>>> I am sure the honest and intelligent members of the public already

> > >>>>>>>>>>> know a great deal of my work, even the details.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> That seems to suggest that you have already revealed some
> > >>>>>>>>>> proprietary information related to your work.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > >>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > >>>>>>>>> I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" and in many usenet
> > >>>>>>>>> articles since. =3D3D3DA0I have copyright over them, I believe. One cannot
> > >>>>>>>>> patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as I understand that
> > >>>>>>>>> since one is liable for for what one writes under one's own name in

> > >>>>>>>>> the public arena, no one else can take the credit or discredit.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > >>>>>>>> I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyright to be
> > >>>>>>>> correct, generally.
> >
> > >>>>>>>> So you haven't released actual designs with descriptions,
> > >>>>>>>> as would be rewuired for a patent application, to the
> > >>>>>>>> general public, have you?
> >
> > >>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > >>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > >>>>>>> True, the work =3D3DA0I have disclosed is not patent quality, as it relates
> > >>>>>>> to ideas and theories that cannot be patented. =3D3DA0To get a ptent, one

> > >>>>>>> must have a new method or

> > >>>>>>> product. =3D3DA0Based upon new ideas, etc. one can make new methods and

> > >>>>>>> products.
> >
> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > >>>>>> What all will it take to get the projects to patent and
> > >>>>>> prototype state, if not funding alone? This is probably a
> > >>>>>> repeat question so apologies.
> >
> > >>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > >>>>>> Om Shanti
> >
> > >>>>> Probably just a tad more than required to patent his prototype flying

> > >>>>> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate on the same
> > >>>>> psychic =3D3DA0physics principle that powers =3D3DA0his internal force engine.

> >
> > >>>> Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundrels pose as
> > >>>> dishonest dullards, in order to extricate information!
> >
> > >>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> > >>>> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion dollar
> > >>>> note and very fortunately some
> > >>>> loose change as well.
> >
> > >>> I meant, honest dullards.
> >
> > >> Dullards, honest or not, can receive an education.
> >
> > >> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > >> Om Shanti
> >
> > > They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and they also
> > > want to abuse and beat up the teachers.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > But they will pay to watch an entertaining movie even if
> > it educates them. This is one of the reasons why I wrote
> > the screenplay.
> >

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> Dullards are solely interested in abusing, beating up, etc. so they
> are not the ones who will pay to see a good movie. They want to
> retain their dullness, grossness, stupidity all intact. However their
> dullness does not prevent them from being racists and bigots - that is
> the highest extent of whatever passes for idealism among the dullards.

They usually pay to watch movies in which others like
them are perpetrating the abuse that they themselves
perpetrate. Most movies portray protagonists being harmed
by antagonists. The scum must get off on those parts.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 13, 10:50 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <f121f540-e9f6-4ccb-8697-4c6721176...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

I must say, this is a new angle. Never thought of seeing a movie
from the dullard-scum's point of view. In this anti-heroic age, I
suppose they must matter a lot. Hmm, so this is one way of making
money out of them. Thanks for pointing this out, Jai.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<9930489b-7ae1-4dbb...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > In article
> > <f121f540-e9f6-4ccb-8697-4c6721176...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > In article
> > > > <db24425d-2432-4840-aad3-37b12fef2...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > >> In article
> > > > >> <16ceace3-a13e-4d19-b4d6-125de6565...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:

> > > > >>> On Jun 12, 2:46=3D3D3DA0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:

> > > > >>>> On Jun 12, 5:47=3D3D3DA0am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>> In article
> > > > >>>>>>>> <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In article

> > > > >>>>>>>>>> <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000pbc.googlegr=

> oups.com>,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is withholding

> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the proprietary components of his work from disclosure i=

> n
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I am sure the honest and intelligent members of the publi=

> c already
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> know a great deal of my work, even the details.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> That seems to suggest that you have already revealed some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> proprietary information related to your work.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > >>>>>>>>> I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" and in many =
> usenet
> > > > >>>>>>>>> articles since. =3D3D3D3DA0I have copyright over them, I be=
> lieve. One cannot
> > > > >>>>>>>>> patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as I understan=
> d that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> since one is liable for for what one writes under one's own=
> name in
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the public arena, no one else can take the credit or discre=

> dit.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>> I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyright to be
> > > > >>>>>>>> correct, generally.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>> So you haven't released actual designs with descriptions,
> > > > >>>>>>>> as would be rewuired for a patent application, to the
> > > > >>>>>>>> general public, have you?
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > >>>>>>> True, the work =3D3D3DA0I have disclosed is not patent qualit=
> y, as it relates
> > > > >>>>>>> to ideas and theories that cannot be patented. =3D3D3DA0To ge=

> t a ptent, one
> > > > >>>>>>> must have a new method or

> > > > >>>>>>> product. =3D3D3DA0Based upon new ideas, etc. one can make new=

> methods and
> > > > >>>>>>> products.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > >>>>>> What all will it take to get the projects to patent and
> > > > >>>>>> prototype state, if not funding alone? This is probably a
> > > > >>>>>> repeat question so apologies.
> >
> > > > >>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > >>>>> Probably just a tad more than required to patent his prototype =

> flying
> > > > >>>>> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate on the same

> > > > >>>>> psychic =3D3D3DA0physics principle that powers =3D3D3DA0his int=

> ernal force engine.
> >
> > > > >>>> Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundrels pose as
> > > > >>>> dishonest dullards, in order to extricate information!
> >

> > > > >>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of al=
> l
> > > > >>>> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion dol=

> lar
> > > > >>>> note and very fortunately some
> > > > >>>> loose change as well.
> >
> > > > >>> I meant, honest dullards.
> >
> > > > >> Dullards, honest or not, can receive an education.
> >
> > > > >> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >> Om Shanti
> >
> > > > > They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and they also
> > > > > want to abuse and beat up the teachers.
> >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > But they will pay to watch an entertaining movie even if
> > > > it educates them. This is one of the reasons why I wrote
> > > > the screenplay.
> >
> > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > Om Shanti
> >
> > > Dullards are solely interested in abusing, beating up, etc. so they

> > > are not the ones who will pay to see a good movie. =A0They want to
> > > retain their dullness, grossness, stupidity all intact. =A0However thei=

> r
> > > dullness does not prevent them from being racists and bigots - that is
> > > the highest extent of whatever passes for idealism among the dullards.
> >
> > They usually pay to watch movies in which others like
> > them are perpetrating the abuse that they themselves
> > perpetrate. Most movies portray protagonists being harmed
> > by antagonists. The scum must get off on those parts.
> >

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> I must say, this is a new angle. Never thought of seeing a movie
> from the dullard-scum's point of view. In this anti-heroic age, I
> suppose they must matter a lot. Hmm, so this is one way of making
> money out of them. Thanks for pointing this out, Jai.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

You know, that's Hollywood: the show is put on for everyone.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 13, 2:15 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <9930489b-7ae1-4dbb-a17b-8d7b2f584...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

Hindi cinemas are not that anti-heroic pro-scum; the bad guys
ulitmately lose though they do beat up the good guys quite a lot.

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

Cool! A "confession" by Lady Kaka. She supposedly received an
"education" despite being a complete dullard, and a dishonest one at that.

> They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and they also want to
> abuse and beat up the teachers.
>

Errrr! How are you different? You want something for free too. But that
was until last year. Now you want money (mine) for your horseshit book
on metaphysics. You think Lady Kaka is going to buy a copy, Arindumb? I
imagine she'll want one for free, for writing that imaginary
iscreenplay. After that it is going to be copy-paste hell for all
subscribers of s.c.indian. But you'll get more notoriety for free, and
you can then unload more books of "metaprose" and "metapoetry" (ugh!).

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>>

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

More "confessions" from Lady Kaka - she needs the money, education be
damned (Lady Kaka's "education" has only given her copy-paste skills).
That astrological gig of hers must have gone tits up. Poor thing wrote
an imaginary iscreenplay for an imaginary H'wood movie to make imaginary
ends meet. Arindumb, take pity on this old crone and throw a couple of
coins (Aussie dollar preferred) her way. You don't have to believe in
any of her "astrological predictions", which she'll send your way for
coin. She might copy-paste a panegyric or two for you.

> Dullards are solely interested in abusing, beating up, etc. so they
> are not the ones who will pay to see a good movie. They want to
> retain their dullness, grossness, stupidity all intact. However their
> dullness does not prevent them from being racists and bigots - that is
> the highest extent of whatever passes for idealism among the dullards.

Dang! I said I'll buy your book - I do not want to bash you for free.
I'll pay money to see "Befriend Arindumb!" (or whatever Lady Kaka's
working title du jour is) too.

>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<67772301-d5b7-4fbb...@qs4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>

> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > In article
> > <9930489b-7ae1-4dbb-a17b-8d7b2f584...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <f121f540-e9f6-4ccb-8697-4c6721176...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > In article

> > > > > > <db24425d-2432-4840-aad3-37b12fef2...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.co=

> m>,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > >> In article

> > > > > > >> <16ceace3-a13e-4d19-b4d6-125de6565...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroup=

> s.com>,
> > > > > > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:

> > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 2:46=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1=
> ....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On Jun 12, 5:47=3D3D3D3DA0am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> =

> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> In article

> > > > > > >>>>>>>> <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb.googleg=
> roups.com,

> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In article

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000pbc.goog=
> legr=3D

> > > oups.com>,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is withhold=
> ing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the proprietary components of his work from disclosu=
> re i=3D

> > > n
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I am sure the honest and intelligent members of the p=
> ubli=3D

> > > c already
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> know a great deal of my work, even the details.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> That seems to suggest that you have already revealed s=

> ome
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> proprietary information related to your work.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" and in m=
> any =3D
> > > usenet
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> articles since. =3D3D3D3D3DA0I have copyright over them=
> , I be=3D
> > > lieve. One cannot
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as I under=
> stan=3D
> > > d that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> since one is liable for for what one writes under one's=
> own=3D
> > > =A0name in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the public arena, no one else can take the credit or di=
> scre=3D

> > > dit.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyright to be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> correct, generally.
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>> So you haven't released actual designs with descriptions=

> ,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> as would be rewuired for a patent application, to the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> general public, have you?
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>> True, the work =3D3D3D3DA0I have disclosed is not patent =
> qualit=3D
> > > y, as it relates
> > > > > > >>>>>>> to ideas and theories that cannot be patented. =3D3D3D3DA=
> 0To ge=3D

> > > t a ptent, one
> > > > > > >>>>>>> must have a new method or

> > > > > > >>>>>>> product. =3D3D3D3DA0Based upon new ideas, etc. one can ma=
> ke new=3D
> > > =A0methods and

> > > > > > >>>>>>> products.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> What all will it take to get the projects to patent and
> > > > > > >>>>>> prototype state, if not funding alone? This is probably a
> > > > > > >>>>>> repeat question so apologies.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > >>>>> Probably just a tad more than required to patent his protot=
> ype =3D
> > > flying
> > > > > > >>>>> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate on the s=
> ame
> > > > > > >>>>> psychic =3D3D3D3DA0physics principle that powers =3D3D3D3DA=
> 0his int=3D
> > > ernal force engine.
> >
> > > > > > >>>> Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundrels pose=

> as
> > > > > > >>>> dishonest dullards, in order to extricate information!
> >

> > > > > > >>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius o=
> f al=3D
> > > l
> > > > > > >>>> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a trillion=
> dol=3D

> > > lar
> > > > > > >>>> note and very fortunately some
> > > > > > >>>> loose change as well.
> >
> > > > > > >>> I meant, honest dullards.
> >
> > > > > > >> Dullards, honest or not, can receive an education.
> >
> > > > > > >> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >> Om Shanti
> >
> > > > > > > They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and they also
> > > > > > > want to abuse and beat up the teachers.
> >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > But they will pay to watch an entertaining movie even if
> > > > > > it educates them. This is one of the reasons why I wrote
> > > > > > the screenplay.
> >
> > > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > Om Shanti
> >
> > > > > Dullards are solely interested in abusing, beating up, etc. so they

> > > > > are not the ones who will pay to see a good movie. =3DA0They want t=
> o
> > > > > retain their dullness, grossness, stupidity all intact. =3DA0Howeve=
> r thei=3D
> > > r
> > > > > dullness does not prevent them from being racists and bigots - that=
> is
> > > > > the highest extent of whatever passes for idealism among the dullar=

> ds.
> >
> > > > They usually pay to watch movies in which others like
> > > > them are perpetrating the abuse that they themselves
> > > > perpetrate. Most movies portray protagonists being harmed
> > > > by antagonists. The scum must get off on those parts.
> >
> > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > Om Shanti
> >

> > > I =A0must say, this is a new angle. =A0Never thought of seeing a movie
> > > from the dullard-scum's point of view. =A0In this anti-heroic age, I
> > > suppose they must matter a lot. =A0Hmm, so this is one way of making
> > > money out of them. =A0Thanks for pointing this out, Jai.

> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > You know, that's Hollywood: the show is put on for everyone.
> >

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> Hindi cinemas are not that anti-heroic pro-scum; the bad guys
> ulitmately lose though they do beat up the good guys quite a lot.

Hollywood films aren't pro-scum either. The good guy/gal
wins at the end after overcoming the obstructions.
Sometimes the antagonists is a circumstance, event or
situation. My point is that the goons, scum, etc., in the
audience consider the bad guys their heroes. And they pay
for tickets too.

Today's so-called Hindi movies (the language is far from
being shuddh Hindi) are a lot alike but do entertain
millions of people.

[Zinnic]

But Arindam, my understanding is that the moving body is the source of
the internal energy which, with each 'hit', increments the velocity
of the body by v. You state that equal amounts of internal energy are
used for increments of the body's velocity from 0 to v and from (N-1)v
to Nv and is actually independent of the velocity of the body.

This can be reconciled with Newton's law only if the energy source is
separate from the body (traveling at Nv) and reverts from the
incremental velocity of v back to 0 after each and every hit. What is
the physics that separates the internal energy from the body, it's
source. That's is a fair question that needs to be answered if your
theory is to make progress.
Hope this helps
Zinnic

>

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 14, 4:52 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <67772301-d5b7-4fbb-b574-fcfeae77e...@qs4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

"Lolita" was pro-scum. "American Beauty" was also pro-scum. In the
sense that the scums would pay to watch them to get vicarious
satisfactions. All the mindless violent movies, sex movies, etc. are
pro-scum, for scum satisfaction.
Most modern US TV serials are pro-scum, or at least pro-anti-heroes,
pandering to the base instincts of the population. The only heroic TV
serial I can think of is Star Trek.

The good guy/gal
> wins at the end after overcoming the obstructions.

Alas, einsteinian relativism makes no distinction any more between
good guys and bad guys, or for that matter, good and bad. Whatever
sells, is good, these days. Which accounts for the success of such
films as "Pirates of the Caribbean" which I would consider the better
sort of modern film.

> Sometimes the antagonists is a circumstance, event or
> situation. My point is that the goons, scum, etc., in the
> audience consider the bad guys their heroes. And they pay
> for tickets too.

Now that is important isn't it.

>
> Today's so-called Hindi movies (the language is far from
> being shuddh Hindi) are a lot alike but do entertain
> millions of people.

I don't see too many Hindi movies these days, the last I saw was
Agneepath in Jaipur at the fabulous Rajmandir theatre. Some movie!
Quite extreme, that. The good guy did not survive, but did manage to
kill the bad guy before dying. Yes, when the villain came on screen he
got lots of support from the audience. Still, Indians are such that
they do not empathise with villains; just that Sanjay Dutt is very
popular with them - so I hope at any rate!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Arindam Banerjee]

Your understanding is wrong, and reflects your continuous and
deliberate dishonesty. I have always said that the source of the
internal energy is confined within the moving body, and thus moves
with the moving body, and the moving body moves without touching air,
water or earth or pushing back part of its own mass. I have said all
this many many times over the last 12 years. The hit is thus internal
to the body, and responsible for its transition to Nv to (N+1)V state
with respect to an observer at v=0 state, the initial state of the
moving body.

You state that equal amounts of internal energy are
> used for increments of the body's velocity from 0 to v and from (N-1)v
> to Nv and is actually independent of the velocity of the body.

Yes, at least this you got correctly. Also add to this, for the sake
of repetition, that the moving body is not touching air, water or
earth; nor is pushing out part of its own mass. In short, it is being
accelerated by its internal force.

>
> This can be reconciled with Newton's law only if the energy source is
> separate from the  body (traveling at Nv) and reverts from the
> incremental velocity of v back to 0 after each and every hit.

Which is why, I am proposing the Newton-Banerjee first law of motion
that generalises the first law, by removing the qualifier "external"
from the term "force".
That is the new thing I am doing.

What is
> the physics that separates the internal energy from the body,  it's
> source.

There is no separation of the internal energy from the body. This is
your own personal and dishonest twist to whatever I have been saying.

That's is a fair question that needs to be answered if your
> theory is to make progress.

My theory will make progress, as it will not be stopped by cunning
scoundrels (liars, twisters, poseurs) posing as honest dullards.
Since I will never ask for any funding from anyone, just do my work
with my own funds, these scoundrels will be in no position to stop any
funding from external sources as they have been doing so far; and I do
not need any recognition from them either.

Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils.

> Hope this helps
> Zinnic

>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<77de2764-6789-4364...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> In article
> > <67772301-d5b7-4fbb-b574-fcfeae77e...@qs4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <9930489b-7ae1-4dbb-a17b-8d7b2f584...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > In article

> > > > > > <f121f540-e9f6-4ccb-8697-4c6721176...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.c=

> om>,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > > > In article

> > > > > > > > <db24425d-2432-4840-aad3-37b12fef2...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroup=
> s.co=3D

> > > m>,
> > > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > > > >> In article

> > > > > > > > >> <16ceace3-a13e-4d19-b4d6-125de6565...@vs10g2000pbc.googleg=
> roup=3D

> > > s.com>,
> > > > > > > > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:

> > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 2:46=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerje=
> eadda1=3D
> > > ....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Jun 12, 5:47=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail=
> .com> =3D

> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> In article

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb.goo=
> gleg=3D

> > > roups.com,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In article

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000pbc.=
> goog=3D
> > > legr=3D3D

> > > > > oups.com>,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is with=
> hold=3D
> > > ing
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the proprietary components of his work from disc=
> losu=3D
> > > re i=3D3D

> > > > > n
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I am sure the honest and intelligent members of t=
> he p=3D
> > > ubli=3D3D

> > > > > c already
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> know a great deal of my work, even the details.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> That seems to suggest that you have already reveal=
> ed s=3D

> > > ome
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> proprietary information related to your work.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" and =
> in m=3D
> > > any =3D3D
> > > > > usenet
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> articles since. =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0I have copyright ove=
> r them=3D
> > > , I be=3D3D
> > > > > lieve. One cannot
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as I u=
> nder=3D
> > > stan=3D3D
> > > > > d that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> since one is liable for for what one writes under o=
> ne's=3D
> > > =A0own=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0name in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the public arena, no one else can take the credit o=
> r di=3D
> > > scre=3D3D
> > > > > dit.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyright t=
> o be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> correct, generally.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> So you haven't released actual designs with descript=
> ions=3D
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> as would be rewuired for a patent application, to th=

> e
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> general public, have you?
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> True, the work =3D3D3D3D3DA0I have disclosed is not p=
> atent =3D
> > > qualit=3D3D
> > > > > y, as it relates
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to ideas and theories that cannot be patented. =3D3D3=
> D3D3DA=3D
> > > 0To ge=3D3D

> > > > > t a ptent, one
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> must have a new method or

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> product. =3D3D3D3D3DA0Based upon new ideas, etc. one =
> can ma=3D
> > > ke new=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0methods and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> products.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> What all will it take to get the projects to patent an=
> d
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> prototype state, if not funding alone? This is probabl=

> y a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> repeat question so apologies.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > > > >>>>> Probably just a tad more than required to patent his pr=
> otot=3D
> > > ype =3D3D
> > > > > flying
> > > > > > > > >>>>> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate on t=
> he s=3D
> > > ame
> > > > > > > > >>>>> psychic =3D3D3D3D3DA0physics principle that powers =3D3=
> D3D3D3DA=3D
> > > 0his int=3D3D
> > > > > ernal force engine.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundrels =
> pose=3D
> > > =A0as

> > > > > > > > >>>> dishonest dullards, in order to extricate information!
> >

> > > > > > > > >>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest geni=
> us o=3D
> > > f al=3D3D
> > > > > l
> > > > > > > > >>>> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a tril=
> lion=3D
> > > =A0dol=3D3D

> > > > > lar
> > > > > > > > >>>> note and very fortunately some
> > > > > > > > >>>> loose change as well.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>> I meant, honest dullards.
> >
> > > > > > > > >> Dullards, honest or not, can receive an education.
> >
> > > > > > > > >> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > > > >> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > > > > They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and they a=

> lso
> > > > > > > > > want to abuse and beat up the teachers.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > > > But they will pay to watch an entertaining movie even if
> > > > > > > > it educates them. This is one of the reasons why I wrote
> > > > > > > > the screenplay.
> >
> > > > > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > > > Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > > Dullards are solely interested in abusing, beating up, etc. so =
> they
> > > > > > > are not the ones who will pay to see a good movie. =3D3DA0They =
> want t=3D
> > > o
> > > > > > > retain their dullness, grossness, stupidity all intact. =3D3DA0=
> Howeve=3D
> > > r thei=3D3D
> > > > > r
> > > > > > > dullness does not prevent them from being racists and bigots - =
> that=3D
> > > =A0is
> > > > > > > the highest extent of whatever passes for idealism among the du=
> llar=3D

> > > ds.
> >
> > > > > > They usually pay to watch movies in which others like
> > > > > > them are perpetrating the abuse that they themselves
> > > > > > perpetrate. Most movies portray protagonists being harmed
> > > > > > by antagonists. The scum must get off on those parts.
> >
> > > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > I =3DA0must say, this is a new angle. =3DA0Never thought of seeing =
> a movie
> > > > > from the dullard-scum's point of view. =3DA0In this anti-heroic age=
> , I
> > > > > suppose they must matter a lot. =3DA0Hmm, so this is one way of mak=
> ing
> > > > > money out of them. =3DA0Thanks for pointing this out, Jai.

The box office take runs the commercial movie industry.
Even many independent filmmakers look to be picked up by
distributors at film festivals, and a few do.

> > Today's so-called Hindi movies (the language is far from
> > being shuddh Hindi) are a lot alike but do entertain
> > millions of people.
> >

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> I don't see too many Hindi movies these days, the last I saw was
> Agneepath in Jaipur at the fabulous Rajmandir theatre. Some movie!
> Quite extreme, that. The good guy did not survive, but did manage to
> kill the bad guy before dying. Yes, when the villain came on screen he
> got lots of support from the audience. Still, Indians are such that
> they do not empathise with villains; just that Sanjay Dutt is very
> popular with them - so I hope at any rate!
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Did the audience applaud? It's too bad that they don't in
movie theatres elsewhere (as far as my experience goes;
wait they do in Mexico, Turkey and some African
countries), for that would translate to better loyalty
and box.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Oops, I was wrong - I did see one nice Hindi movie after Agneepath:
Bud-dah hoga tera baap, starring the great guru AB. There too, there
was einsteinian relativism for the old guy (no distinction between
good and bad, just love for his son) but the beta fortunately had old-
age absolute heroic values.

>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Zinnic]

I know that you "have always said" [this] "many, many times over the
last 12years." but for some strange reason the personnel of the
patent office require more than a personal assurance, even from a
genius (they are such 'fusspots')

> > This can be reconciled with Newton's law only if the energy source is
> > separate from the  body (traveling at Nv) and reverts from the
> > incremental velocity of v back to 0 after each and every hit.
:
> Which is why, I am proposing the Newton-Banerjee first law of motion
> that generalises the first law, by removing the qualifier "external"
> from the term "force".
> That is the new thing I am doing.

But what is "new" in renaming a law of physics simply on the grounds
of your say so? I believe that the patent office and posterity will
demand just a tad more empirical evidence.

> >What is the physics that separates the internal energy from the body,  ......

> There is no separation of the internal energy from the body. This is
>your own personal and dishonest twist to whatever I have been saying.

> >That's is a fair question that needs to be answered if your
> > theory is to make progress.

> My theory will make progress, as it will not be stopped by cunning
> scoundrels (liars, twisters, poseurs) posing as honest dullards.
> Since I will never ask for any funding from anyone, just do my work
> with my own funds, these scoundrels will be in no position to stop any
> funding from external sources as they have been doing so far; and I do
> not need any recognition from them either.

You have not indicated why the the internal force is assymetric and
impels the body along a specific vector.
I suggest is that you locate fireworks assyrmetrically inside a
pressure-proof container suspended from above . Report back if you can
induce the container to swing in a controlled direction by igniting
the internal firework. This would be much simpler and far less
expensive than "blowing up" the bows of ships with an on board rail
gun.
Hope this helps

Zinnic

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

On 6/13/2012 3:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:52 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
> Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>
>> Hollywood films aren't pro-scum either.
>
> "Lolita" was pro-scum. "American Beauty" was also pro-scum. In the
> sense that the scums would pay to watch them to get vicarious
> satisfactions. All the mindless violent movies, sex movies, etc. are
> pro-scum, for scum satisfaction.
> Most modern US TV serials are pro-scum, or at least pro-anti-heroes,
> pandering to the base instincts of the population. The only heroic TV
> serial I can think of is Star Trek.
>

Nobody is compelling you to spend your money on Bollywood movies, are
they? How about that imaginary movie (with all the vedic cleanliness)
that yer Lady Kaka has been threatening to make.

> The good guy/gal
>> wins at the end after overcoming the obstructions.
>

"The obstructions"?

> Alas, einsteinian relativism makes no distinction any more between
> good guys and bad guys, or for that matter, good and bad. Whatever
> sells, is good, these days. Which accounts for the success of such
> films as "Pirates of the Caribbean" which I would consider the better
> sort of modern film.
>

"Einsteinian relativism"? WTF is that? I don't believe you know what
"relativism" means, Arindumb.

>> Sometimes the antagonists is a circumstance, event or
>> situation. My point is that the goons, scum, etc., in the
>> audience consider the bad guys their heroes. And they pay
>> for tickets too.
>

Dang! Lady Kaka does not know how to distinguish between "reel life" and
"real life".

> Now that is important isn't it.
>>
>> Today's so-called Hindi movies (the language is far from
>> being shuddh Hindi) are a lot alike but do entertain
>> millions of people.
>

And so speaketh a creature that used the words "maut" and "khabar"
(Perso-Arabic words) in another post. What happened to the "shuddh
Hindi" bit then? What a fucking fraud.

> I don't see too many Hindi movies these days, the last I saw was
> Agneepath in Jaipur at the fabulous Rajmandir theatre. Some movie!
> Quite extreme, that. The good guy did not survive, but did manage to
> kill the bad guy before dying. Yes, when the villain came on screen he
> got lots of support from the audience. Still, Indians are such that
> they do not empathise with villains; just that Sanjay Dutt is very
> popular with them - so I hope at any rate!
>

You too joined in with the "seetis", Arindumb? Or did you just your
disapproving vedic headshake, that famous Indian head bobble?

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>>
>>
>>

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

On 6/13/2012 4:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> Oops, I was wrong - I did see one nice Hindi movie after Agneepath:
> Bud-dah hoga tera baap, starring the great guru AB. There too, there
> was einsteinian relativism for the old guy (no distinction between
> good and bad, just love for his son) but the beta fortunately had old-
> age absolute heroic values.
>

Pretentious goddamn prick, first find out what relativism means, before
tacking on Einstein's name ahead of it.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Won't work.

This would be much simpler and far less
> expensive than "blowing up" the bows of ships with an on board rail
> gun.

Should work.

Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils

> Hope this helps
>
> Zinnic- Hide quoted text -

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 14, 9:05 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <77de2764-6789-4364-b014-550340889...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Going back to the scum in the audience, what do you think is their
percentage? I mean, this value will direct the course of the
commercial movie, with maximising profit in mind.

>
> > > Today's so-called Hindi movies (the language is far from
> > > being shuddh Hindi) are a lot alike but do entertain
> > > millions of people.
>
> > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > Om Shanti
>
> > I don't see too many Hindi movies these days, the last I saw was
> > Agneepath in Jaipur at the fabulous Rajmandir theatre.  Some movie!
> > Quite extreme, that. The good guy did not survive, but did manage to
> > kill the bad guy before dying. Yes, when the villain came on screen he
> > got lots of support from the audience.  Still, Indians are such that
> > they do not empathise with villains; just that Sanjay Dutt is very
> > popular with them - so I hope at any rate!
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Did the audience applaud?

Yes, they were responsive all right. Took me back some 34 years, to
the days of my youth in Ghaziabad.

It's too bad that they don't in
> movie theatres elsewhere (as far as my experience goes;
> wait they do in Mexico, Turkey and some African
> countries), for that would translate to better loyalty
> and box.

They are quiet here in Melbourne, with the occasional laughter and
that too subdued. Only response I ever saw was when an Indian couple
left the theatre after the first few minutes of Slumdog Millionaire.
Apparently the raw abuse was too much for them!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>> In article
>> <77de2764-6789-4364-b014-550340889...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>> In article
>>>> <67772301-d5b7-4fbb-b574-fcfeae77e...@qs4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>> In article

>>>>>> <9930489b-7ae1-4dbb-a17b-8d7b2f584...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com=

>>,
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>> <f121f540-e9f6-4ccb-8697-4c6721176...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegrou=
> ps.c=3D

>>> om>,
>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>>>> <db24425d-2432-4840-aad3-37b12fef2...@oo8g2000pbc.googleg=
> roup=3D
>>> s.co=3D3D

>>>>> m>,
>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>>>>>> <16ceace3-a13e-4d19-b4d6-125de6565...@vs10g2000pbc.goo=
> gleg=3D
>>> roup=3D3D

>>>>> s.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2:46=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Arindam Banerjee <b=
> anerje=3D
>>> eadda1=3D3D
>>>>> ....@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:47=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0am, Zinnic <zinnic....=
> @gmail=3D
>>> .com> =3D3D

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <b1a4c36f-c9c0-4a52-a229-80b126c3d...@u1g2000pbb=
> .goo=3D
>>> gleg=3D3D

>>>>> roups.com,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <e02110b4-0b9a-4fdc-9793-fa7fc62e0...@si8g2000=
> pbc.=3D
>>> goog=3D3D
>>>>> legr=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> oups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted=
> :
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not blame Arindam Banerjee if he is =
> with=3D
>>> hold=3D3D
>>>>> ing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proprietary components of his work from =
> disc=3D
>>> losu=3D3D
>>>>> re i=3D3D3D

>>>>>>> n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure the honest and intelligent members =
> of t=3D
>>> he p=3D3D
>>>>> ubli=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> c already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know a great deal of my work, even the detail=
> s.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to suggest that you have already re=
> veal=3D
>>> ed s=3D3D

>>>>> ome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary information related to your work.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that long ago in my book "To the Stars!" =
> and =3D
>>> in m=3D3D
>>>>> any =3D3D3D
>>>>>>> usenet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles since. =3D3D3D3D3D3D3DA0I have copyrig=
> ht ove=3D
>>> r them=3D3D
>>>>> , I be=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> lieve. One cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patent ideas, but one can copyright them and as=
> I u=3D
>>> nder=3D3D
>>>>> stan=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> d that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since one is liable for for what one writes und=
> er o=3D
>>> ne's=3D3D
>>>>> =3DA0own=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> =3D3DA0name in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the public arena, no one else can take the cred=
> it o=3D
>>> r di=3D3D
>>>>> scre=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> dit.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe what you wrote about ideas and copyrig=
> ht t=3D
>>> o be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, generally.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you haven't released actual designs with desc=
> ript=3D
>>> ions=3D3D
>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as would be rewuired for a patent application, t=
> o th=3D

>>> e
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general public, have you?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, the work =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0I have disclosed is=
> not p=3D
>>> atent =3D3D
>>>>> qualit=3D3D3D

>>>>>>> y, as it relates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ideas and theories that cannot be patented. =

> =3D3D3D3=3D
>>> D3D3DA=3D3D
>>>>> 0To ge=3D3D3D

>>>>>>> t a ptent, one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must have a new method or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product. =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Based upon new ideas, etc=
> . one =3D
>>> can ma=3D3D
>>>>> ke new=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> =3D3DA0methods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> products.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What all will it take to get the projects to paten=
> t an=3D
>>> d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prototype state, if not funding alone? This is pro=
> babl=3D

>>> y a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeat question so apologies.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably just a tad more than required to patent hi=
> s pr=3D
>>> otot=3D3D
>>>>> ype =3D3D3D
>>>>>>> flying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carpet. Arindam indicates that they it may operate =
> on t=3D
>>> he s=3D3D
>>>>> ame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychic =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0physics principle that power=
> s =3D3D3=3D
>>> D3D3D3DA=3D3D
>>>>> 0his int=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> ernal force engine.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, it is interesting when actually cunning scoundr=
> els =3D
>>> pose=3D3D
>>>>> =3DA0as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest dullards, in order to extricate informatio=
> n!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest =
> geni=3D
>>> us o=3D3D
>>>>> f al=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, sole god among lotsa devils, chap with many a =
> tril=3D
>>> lion=3D3D
>>>>> =3DA0dol=3D3D3D

>>>>>>> lar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note and very fortunately some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loose change as well.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant, honest dullards.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dullards, honest or not, can receive an education.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> They don't want to pay for it, they want it free and th=
> ey a=3D

>>> lso
>>>>>>>>>>> want to abuse and beat up the teachers.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But they will pay to watch an entertaining movie even if
>>>>>>>>>> it educates them. This is one of the reasons why I wrote
>>>>>>>>>> the screenplay.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>>>> Dullards are solely interested in abusing, beating up, etc.=
> so =3D
>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are not the ones who will pay to see a good movie. =3D3D3DA=
> 0They =3D
>>> want t=3D3D
>>>>> o
>>>>>>>>> retain their dullness, grossness, stupidity all intact. =3D=
> 3D3DA0=3D
>>> Howeve=3D3D
>>>>> r thei=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> r
>>>>>>>>> dullness does not prevent them from being racists and bigot=
> s - =3D
>>> that=3D3D
>>>>> =3DA0is
>>>>>>>>> the highest extent of whatever passes for idealism among th=
> e du=3D
>>> llar=3D3D

>>>>> ds.
>>
>>>>>>>> They usually pay to watch movies in which others like
>>>>>>>> them are perpetrating the abuse that they themselves
>>>>>>>> perpetrate. Most movies portray protagonists being harmed
>>>>>>>> by antagonists. The scum must get off on those parts.
>>
>>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>>>>>> I =3D3DA0must say, this is a new angle. =3D3DA0Never thought of=
> seeing =3D
>>> a movie
>>>>>>> from the dullard-scum's point of view. =3D3DA0In this anti-hero=
> ic age=3D
>>> , I
>>>>>>> suppose they must matter a lot. =3D3DA0Hmm, so this is one way =
> of mak=3D
>>> ing
>>>>>>> money out of them. =3D3DA0Thanks for pointing this out, Jai.

>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>> You know, that's Hollywood: the show is put on for everyone.
>>
>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>>>> Hindi cinemas are not that anti-heroic pro-scum; the bad guys
>>>>> ulitmately lose though they do beat up the good guys quite a lot.
>>
>>>> Hollywood films aren't pro-scum either.
>>

>>> "Lolita" was pro-scum. "American Beauty" =A0was also pro-scum. =A0In th=

> e
>>> sense that the scums would pay to watch them to get vicarious

>>> satisfactions. =A0All the mindless violent movies, sex movies, etc. are

>>> pro-scum, for scum satisfaction.
>>> Most modern US TV serials are pro-scum, or at least pro-anti-heroes,
>>> pandering to the base instincts of the population. The only heroic TV
>>> serial I can think of is Star Trek.
>>
>>> The good guy/gal
>>>> wins at the end after overcoming the obstructions.
>>
>>> Alas, einsteinian relativism makes no distinction any more between

>>> good guys and bad guys, or for that matter, good and bad. =A0Whatever

>>> sells, is good, these days. Which accounts for the success of such
>>> films as "Pirates of the Caribbean" which I would consider the better
>>> sort of modern film.
>>
>>>> Sometimes the antagonists is a circumstance, event or
>>>> situation. My point is that the goons, scum, etc., in the
>>>> audience consider the bad guys their heroes. And they pay
>>>> for tickets too.
>>
>>> Now that is important isn't it.
>>
>> The box office take runs the commercial movie industry.
>> Even many independent filmmakers look to be picked up by
>> distributors at film festivals, and a few do.
>
> Going back to the scum in the audience, what do you think is their
> percentage? I mean, this value will direct the course of the
> commercial movie, with maximising profit in mind.

That's a good question. The protagonist struggles with
obstacles in most formulaic movies, so bad stuff does
happen in them. This conflict keeps the audience
interested enough to sit through the film to the point of
resolution at the end. This is when the good guy wins.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

>>>> Today's so-called Hindi movies (the language is far from
>>>> being shuddh Hindi) are a lot alike but do entertain
>>>> millions of people.
>>
>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>> I don't see too many Hindi movies these days, the last I saw was

>>> Agneepath in Jaipur at the fabulous Rajmandir theatre. =A0Some movie!

>>> Quite extreme, that. The good guy did not survive, but did manage to
>>> kill the bad guy before dying. Yes, when the villain came on screen he

>>> got lots of support from the audience. =A0Still, Indians are such that

>>> they do not empathise with villains; just that Sanjay Dutt is very
>>> popular with them - so I hope at any rate!
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> Did the audience applaud?
>
> Yes, they were responsive all right. Took me back some 34 years,
> to the days of my youth in Ghaziabad.

Speaking of going back years, I'm trying to recall a
children's limerick that is about a totaa (parrot),
Dillee, Faridabad and Ghaziabad. Any reader here remember
that one?

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

>> It's too bad that they don't in
>> movie theatres elsewhere (as far as my experience goes;
>> wait they do in Mexico, Turkey and some African
>> countries), for that would translate to better loyalty
>> and box.
>>

>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>

> They are quiet here in Melbourne, with the occasional laughter and
> that too subdued. Only response I ever saw was when an Indian couple
> left the theatre after the first few minutes of Slumdog Millionaire.
> Apparently the raw abuse was too much for them!
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

I can understand their behavior. By the way, its
producers ripped off the book's author as well as the
Bharatiya actors in the movie. Or so some news reports
claimed at the time.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Well yes, so far no movie I have seen in any language glorifies the
evil.

>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> >>>> Today's so-called Hindi movies (the language is far from
> >>>> being shuddh Hindi) are a lot alike but do entertain
> >>>> millions of people.
>
> >>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> >>>> Om Shanti
>
> >>> I don't see too many Hindi movies these days, the last I saw was
> >>> Agneepath in Jaipur at the fabulous Rajmandir theatre. =A0Some movie!
> >>> Quite extreme, that. The good guy did not survive, but did manage to
> >>> kill the bad guy before dying. Yes, when the villain came on screen he
> >>> got lots of support from the audience. =A0Still, Indians are such that
> >>> they do not empathise with villains; just that Sanjay Dutt is very
> >>> popular with them - so I hope at any rate!
>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Arindam Banerjee
>
> >> Did the audience applaud?
>
> > Yes, they were responsive all right.  Took me back some 34 years,
> > to the days of my youth in Ghaziabad.
>
> Speaking of going back years, I'm trying to recall a
> children's limerick that is about a totaa (parrot),
> Dillee, Faridabad and Ghaziabad. Any reader here remember
> that one?

I remember that one about totaa and maina, long time back.

>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> >> It's too bad that they don't in
> >> movie theatres elsewhere (as far as my experience goes;
> >> wait they do in Mexico, Turkey and some African
> >> countries), for that would translate to better loyalty
> >> and box.
>
> >> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> >> Om Shanti
>
> > They are quiet here in Melbourne, with the occasional laughter and
> > that too subdued.  Only response I ever saw was when an Indian couple
> > left the theatre after the first few minutes of Slumdog Millionaire.
> > Apparently the raw abuse was too much for them!
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> I can understand their behavior. By the way, its
> producers ripped off the book's author as well as the
> Bharatiya actors in the movie. Or so some news reports
> claimed at the time.

That is quite possible. One has to take the legal line with such
clever guys in all commercial matters. Trust does not work. The only
thing they do understand is the chance of getting sued.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 14, 11:39 pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

<KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 4:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oops, I was wrong - I did see one nice Hindi movie after Agneepath:
> > Bud-dah hoga tera baap, starring the great guru AB.  There too, there
> > was einsteinian relativism for the old guy (no distinction between
> > good and bad, just love for his son) but the beta fortunately had old-
> > age absolute heroic values.
>
> Pretentious goddamn prick, first find out what relativism means, before
> tacking on Einstein's name ahead of it.

At your service, quotay.
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils.
Note: bin = trash, rubbish, discard, etc.

Part of a 2005 article, copied from the main article below:

Before I tackle the most fundamental issues relating to the
Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment - and yet again expose the
bungle there, this time as clearly as possible - let me first, with
sadness, reflect upon the horrendous consequences of this most
pernicious theory of relativity.
The deepest theories of physics are by no means complete in
themselves,
with some relevance to engineering; they have an intimate connection
with individual and social life, by providing the practical basis for
individual and group thought structures. By outing the need for any
absolute frame of reference, Einstein's relativity implicitly gave
the license to all forms of individual and social thinking as equally
valid. Thus, the thinking of the child molester or serial killer is
as
valid - from the extension of Einstein's relativity to real life - as
the thinking of the law enforcer or saint. There is no basis for
differentiation between virtue and vice, between appearance and
reality. All are equally valid in the same relativist currency.
What
is truth, or what is lie, becomes merely a matter of opinion
announced
and imposed by the loudest and the strongest of the time.
Thus I see the stupidities, indecencies, and the extraordinary
bloody-mindedness of the 20th century (a century of world wars, mass
murders, extreme human inequalities; now leading to another dominated
by selfishness, fear and greed) as an indirect yet inescapable
consequence of Einstein's theories, to some extent. Men can turn
into self-important brats more easily, as their subconscious can now
find good excuse, from the supposedly undeniable basics of physics,
to
disregard absolute checks upon behaviour. Einstein himself showed
this, when he felt no constraints about writing a letter to the
President of the USA urging the development of the atomic bomb;
knowing
fully well that its development would cause immense evil.
For in a relativistic mental set-up, there can be no high and defined
end to aspire unto; there can be no striving for the realization of
absolute truths as fixed goals. There is, thus, only the scope of
degeneration of whatever remaining values that were handed down by
the
non-relativists of earlier generations. This is painfully evident
from
the moral atrophy and social degeneration in modern societies; as
also
from those failed communist regimes where the whims of dictators
became
the highest values for all.


A 2005 posting (full article)

If we humans are to wander among your stars, we must first throw out
certain ridiculously wrong notions about physics. The most startling
of such nonsense relates to the theories of relativity, which reared
up
about a hundred years ago. One of the most outrageous consequences
of
this theory, as put forward by its adherents, is that the general
public sincerely believes that travel is not possible beyond the
speed
of light; and it also believes that unlimited energy could be
obtained
from certain processing of seawater! In the historical perspective,
this is rather like believing that the world is flat; and in the
basic
principle of alchemy, that is, base metals could be converted into
gold.
The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, with its famously
unexpected null results, is the sole source and also remains the core
hard undeniable scientific evidence for the theories of relativity.
One of the outstanding features about this experiment is that it is
simple in concept, and has been done with painstaking efforts by many
scientists.
In this article, I will quote exhaustively from a textbook (details
below) about the nature and philosophical background behind this
experiment and will pinpoint the great blunder that was made in the
analysis of the null results. I will show as clearly as can be, the
nature of this blunder. I hope and believe that the intelligent
reader
will understand the subtlety underlying this very fine error, and
grasp
the enormous and highly positive consequences - with the
re-invigoration of physics from the most fundamental level.
Arindam Banerjee
Melbourne, July 2005.
Reference:
Textbook Details:
"Physics of the Atom", by M. Russell Wehr and James A. Richards,
Jr. of the Department of Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
First Printed in 1964.
______________________________¬_________________________
"This book is neither a treatise nor a survey. It is a textbook
which bridges the gap between classical physics and the present
frontiers of physical investigation." - extract from the Preface, by
the writers. Philadelphia, Pa., July 1959.
Chapter 5 - Relativity (excerpts)
Pg111 ->
5-1 Consider the interpretations of physical events that might be
made
by a person of high IQ born and brought up on a merry-go-round. He
would experience a force somewhat like the force of gravity. It
would
be down at the centre of rotation, and, because of the centrifugal
component, it would be directed down and out at points away from the
centre.
If our merry-go-round observer were to have the genius to devise a
whole system of mechanics, the mechanics he would devise would not be
the mechanics of Newton.
For Newton's laws to be valid precisely, we must observe events from
what is called an inertial frame of a Galilean-Newtonian co-ordinate
system. Such a system is one which has no acceleration. The whole
structure of classical physics, then, is based on the assumption that
we interpret all events as they would be interpreted by an observer
whose viewpoint is an inertial reference frame.
The genius of Newton is, in part, that although he never could step
off
the earth physically, he did step off it mentally. He interpreted
events as though he had no acceleration. Because of this shift in
his
viewpoint, he was able to write his laws of mechanics in the
particularly simple form that he did.
But Newton never really knew where he projected himself to, and this
worried him. He excluded the earth as a vantage point because the
earth not only rotates but revolves around the sun. The sun offered
possibilities, but even the sun moves and is probably accelerated
through space. The stellar constellations were named by the ancients
and the stability of their arrangement led to their being called the
"fixed" stars. Yet it would be the strangest of co-incidences if
the "fixed" stars really were fixed.
It would seem that, however, that if we locate a frame of reference
so
that it is fixed relative to the stars, this vantage point will be
sufficiently steady for Newton's laws to serve well for every
practical purpose. Such a vantage point is good enough for the
practical men who want to fly aircraft, etc. But for a philosopher or
physicist whose primary concern is the understanding of the nature of
things and whose goal is the discovery of truth, uncertainty about
the
frame of reference represented a serious flaw in the logical
structure
of classical physics.
5-2 The search for something more fixed than the stars went
something
like this. James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that electricity and
light
are related phenomena. Starting with known properties of electricity
and magnetism, Maxwell derived equations which are identical in form
to
the equations which describe many wave phenomena. He could
demonstrate, furthermore, that the velocity of the waves he
discovered
was the same as the velocity of light. He could derive many other
properties of light, and it was soon accepted that he had put the
wave
theory of light on a firm foundation. In this theory, light is an
electromagnetic wave motion.
Every wave motion has something that "waves". Surely, it was
argued, light waves must involve the waving of something even in free
space. No one knew what it was, but it was given the name
"luminiferous ether".
Light passes through many kinds of materials. It passes through
relatively heavy materials like glass, and it passes through the
nearly
perfect vacuum that must lie between the stars and the earth. Thus
ether must permeate all of space.
However fanciful it may seem to us, physicists felt that this ether
might be just the thing to which to attach a Newtonian co-ordinate
system. It was conceived that Newton's laws would hold exactly for
an observer moving without acceleration relative to the ether.
If the ether is assumed to be at rest, then the interesting question
is: How fast are we moving through the ether? Since all speculations
about the ether stem from its properties as a medium for carrying
light, an optical experiment is indicated. It is not hard to compute
how sensitive the apparatus must be to measure the ether drift.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the sun has no ether drift,
the velocity of the earth through the ether must be its orbital
velocity. If the sun has an ether drift, then the drift of the earth
will be even greater than its orbital velocity at some seasons.
Knowing that the earth's orbit is about 93 million miles, we can find
the orbital velocity to be about 18.5 miles per second. By
performing
the experiment at the best season of the year, we know that we should
be able to find an ether drift of at least 18.5 mi/sec. The velocity
of light is 186,000 mi/sec. Great as our orbital velocity is, it is
only .0001 times the velocity of light; so it is evident that a very
sensitive instrument is required.
5-3 A device of sufficient sensitivity was made and used in the
United
States by Michelson and Morley in 1887. The principle of their
apparatus is brought out by the following analogy.
Suppose two equally fast swimmers undertake a race in a river between
floats anchored to the river bed.
(Arindam's note: please note the expression - "floats anchored to
the river bed" meaning that they are stuck to the ground, or the
inertial frame of reference. Also let us mutter here, with Galileo,
that the earth, it moves!)
_____________________River Bank______________________
C
Speed of river -> v
Same distance L lies between A and C, and A and D.
Speed of swimmer with respect to the water is c.
A D
______________________River Bank_______________________
Two equal courses, each having a total length 2L, are laid out from
the
starting point, float A. One course is AD, parallel to the flow of
the
river relative to the earth, and the other AC, perpendicular to it.
How will the times compare if each of the swimmers goes out and back
on
his course? Let the speed of each swimmer relative to the water be
c,
and let the water drift or velocity with respect to the earth be v.
When the swimmer on the parallel course goes downstream, his velocity
will add to that of the water, giving him a resultant velocity of (c
+v)
with respect to the earth. The time required for him to swim the
distance L from A to D is L/(c+v). On his return, he must overcome
the
water drift. His net velocity then is (c-v), and his return time is
L/(c-v). His total time is the sum of these two times. This is given
by
Time_parallel = L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) = 2Lc/(cc - vv).
The other swimmer, going perpendicular to the water drift, spends the
same time on each half of his trip, but he must head upstream if he
is
not to be carried away by the current. The component of his velocity
that carries him toward his goal is the square root of (cc - vv) with
respect to the earth. The total time for his trip also depends on
the
water drift, and is
Time perpendicular = 2L/(square root of (cc - vv)).
To see how these two times compare, we divide the parallel course
time,
by the perpendicular course time, to get
Time parallel/Time perpendicular = 1/(square root of (1 - vv/cc))
In still water v=0, the ratio of the times is unity, and the race is
a
tie, as we would expect. In slowly moving water, the ratio is
greater
than unity and the swimmer on the perpendicular course wins; or put
differently, if the swimmers are stroking in phase when they leave
float A, they will be out of phase when they return to it. If the
velocity of the river increases to nearly that of the swimmer, then
the
ratio tends towards infinity. If the river velocity exceeds the
swimmer velocity, the entire analysis breaks down. The ratio becomes
imaginary and both swimmers are swept off the course by the current.
The point is that, by observing the race, the velocity of the water
relative to the system of anchored floats can be measured.
The optical equivalent of the above situation is to have a race
between
two light rays over identical courses, one parallel and one
perpendicular to the ether drift. The instrument used, is called a
Michelson interferometer, is shown schematically below.
_C_ .
_B_
Light entry
_________A //_______________D

____observer (eye, telescope)
Light enters the apparatus from the source at the left. At A it
strikes a glass mirror (angled at 45 deg) which has a half-silvered
surface. Half the light is reflected up toward B and C, while the
other half refracts at both surfaces of A and emerges parallel to the
original beam and goes on to D. Both C and D are full-silvered,
front-surface mirrors which turn their beams back towards A. The
beam
from C is partly reflected at A, but part of that beam refracts
through
A and goes to the observer. The beam from D partially refracts
through
A and is lost, but part of the beam is also reflected toward the
observer. The plate of glass at B has the same thickness and
inclination as that at A, so that the two light paths from source to
observer pass through the same number of glass thicknesses. If the
light from the slit did not diverge and remained very narrow in going
through the apparatus, the observer would see a line of light. The
brightness of this line would depend on the difference in the optical
length* of the two light paths. (*Footnote: Two paths have the same
optical length if light traverses both in the same time.
The optical lengths of the interferometer paths can be changed by
changing their physical length, by changing the index of refraction
of
the region through which the light passes, or, if the swimming
analogy
applies, by moving the apparatus relative to the light-carrying
medium.) If these (optical lengths) differed by any whole number of
wavelengths of the light (including zero) the line would be bright.
If
the path differed by an odd number of half-wavelengths, then the line
would be dark. Between these extremes every brightness gradation
would
be observed. In practice, light does diverge in the apparatus, and
there are a great many slightly different paths being traversed
simultaneously. Consequently the observer does not see but a
multiplicity of lines. The loci of points where the paths differ by
whole wavelengths are bright, and where the paths differ by an odd
number of half-wavelengths there is darkness. Thus, as one path
length
is varied, the observer sees fringes, like the teeth of a comb, move
across the field, rather than a single line becoming lighter and
darker. It is fortunate that the optical system works as it does,
since it is easier for the eye to detect differences in position than
differences in intensity.
The precision of this device is remarkable. If yellow light from
Sodium
is used, the wavelength is 5.893*10**-7 m. Moving the mirror C away
from A one-half this distance will increase one path length by a
whole
wavelength and cause the pattern to move an amount equal to the
separation of two adjacent dark lines. If we can estimate to
hundredths of fringes, then the smallest detectable motion is only
2.9*10**-9m.
The similarity between the Michelson interferometer and the swimming
race should be evident. Light corresponds to the swimmers and has
the
free-space velocity, c, with respect to the ether medium. The ether
drift corresponds to the water current drift and has the velocity v
with respect to the earth. Just as we could learn about the river
flow
by seeing the outcome of the swimmers' race, so we wish to measure
the ether drift by conducting a "light race" over equal paths
parallel and perpendicular to the ether drift.
Suppose that instead of taking the ratio of the times for the two
paths
of the river race we now take their difference; then
t = time difference = 2Lc/(cc-vv) - 2L/square root of(cc-vv) =
Lvv/ccc after using the first two terms of the binomial expansion, to
a
good approximation if v<<c.
In the interferometer, the time difference should appear as a fringe
shift from the position the fringes would have if there were NO ether
drift. The distance light moves in a time t is d=ct and if this
distance represents n waves of wavelength W, then d=nW. Therefore
the
fringe shift would be n=Lvv/(Wcc)
Thus if the light race is carried out with speed of light c and
wavelength W in an interferometer whose arms are of length L, one of
which is parallel to the ether drift of velocity v, then the equation
n=Lvv/(Wcc) gives the number of fringes that should be displaced
because of the motion of the earthe through the ether compared with
their positions if the earth were AT REST in the ether.
5-4 The Michelson-Morley Experiment. The apparatus used was large
and
had its effective arm length increased to about 10 m by using
additional mirrors to fold up the path. The entire apparatus was
floated on mercury so that it could be rotated at constant speed
without introducing strains that would deform the apparatus.
ROTATION
WAS NECESSARY in order to make the fringes shift, and by rotating
through 90deg, first one arm and then the other could be made
parallel
to the drift, thereby doubling the fringe displacement given in the
earlier equation. We can now estimate whether this instrument should
be sensitive enough to detect the ether drift. Recall that at some
time of the year the ether drift v was expected to be at least the
orbital velocity of the earth, which is about .0001c. Thus we expect
vv/cc to be at least 10**-8. Using light of wavelength 5*10**-7 m,
the
computed shift is n=0.4 fringe. Michelson and Morley estimated that
they could detect a shift of 0.01 fringe. Sensitivity to spare!
Measurements were made over an extended period of time at all seasons
of the year, but no significant fringe shift was observed. Thinking
that the earth might drag a little either along with it just as a
boat
carries a thin layer of water when it glides, Michelson and Morley
took
the entire apparatus to a mountain laboratory in search of a site
which
would project into the drifting ether. Again a diligent search
failed
to measure an ether drift. The experiment "failed".
Few experimental failures have been more stimulating than this. The
negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment presented a
challenge to explain its failure. Fitzgerald and Lorentz presented
an
ad hoc explanation. They pointed out that there might be an
interaction between the ether and objects moving relative to it, such
that the object became shorter in all its dimensions parallel to the
relative velocity. Recall that in the flowing water analogy the
ratio
of the times of the swimmers was
1/square-root of (1-vv/cc).
If the route parallel to the flow had been shorter by this factor,
then
the ratio of the times would have been one and the race would have
been
a tie. A similar shortening of the parallel interferometer arm would
account for the tie race Michelson and Morley always observed. The
shortening could never be measured because any rule used to measure
it
would also be moving relative to the ether and would shorten also.
Whether you accept the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis or
not, the Michelson-Morley experiment indicates that all observers who
measure the velocity of light will get the same result regardless of
their own velocity through space.
5-5 The constant velocity of light. Michelson and Morley found that
the speed of the earth through space made no difference in the speed
of
light relative to them. The inference is clear: either that the
earth
moves in some way through ether space more slowly than it moves about
the sun, or that ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THAT THEIR MOTION THROUGH
SPACE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THEM.
The above inference was clear, at least to Einstein, who took the
second alternative and made it a cornerstone of his special theory of
relativity.
Recall that the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out to
measure
the speed of the earth relative to the ether in order to establish a
frame of reference relative to which Newton's laws would hold. The
failure of that experiment meant that the search for the fixed
reference system must be made by another technique or abandoned
altogether. Einstein explored the alternative of abandonment. He
asked himself where he would stand (both literally and figuratively)
if
there were no "Newtonian" frame of reference. In this case there
could be no absolute velocities, for every velocity would have to be
measured relative to an origin that might and probably would be
moving.
Since there can be no preferred frame of reference, any frame must
be
as good as any other. To be universal, the laws of physics must be
the
same for all observers regardless of any motion they may have.
Contrary to the first paragraphs of this chapter, one's viewpoint
MUST MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in one's interpretation of events observed.
If he is to be correct, the man born and brought up on a merry-go-
round
must deduce the same laws of physics as anyone else.
**** End of exhaustive quotations from the textbook "Physics of the
Atom", from 5-1 to 5-5. The following sections, in brief, are about:
5-6 General and Special theories of relativity.
5-7 Classical Relativity
5-8 Einsteinian Relativity. Quote: p123 The Michelson-Morley
experiment was based on the assumption that since the classical
velocity transformation is not invariant, it should be possible to
measure the velocity of light in the ether relative to the earth.
The
experiment demonstrated that at least one velocity is invariant - the
velocity of light. Einstein accepted this as a second fundamental
assumption of this special theory of relativity. He postulated that:
(2) ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELOCITY
OF LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE.
5-9 Relativistic space-time transformation equations.
5-10 The relativistic velocity transformation
5-11 Relativistic mass transformation
5-12 Relativistic mass-energy equivalence
5-13 The upper limit of velocity
5-14 Examples of relativistic calculations
5-15 Pair production
5-16 Summary. We have seen how Einstein's attention to a flaw in
logic in Newtonian mechanics led him to consider the importance of an
observer's viewpoint. We have seen how the "failure" of the
Michelson-Morley experiment led Einstein to assign special
significance
to the velocity of light in free space. We have seen how these
considerations led to new concepts of space, time, mass, energy, and
matter. When we realize that this was but one of Einstein's
achievements, we begin to sense the magnitude of his contribution to
human thought.
(End of quotes from the book "Physics of the Atom".)
Before I tackle the most fundamental issues relating to the
Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment - and yet again expose the
bungle there, this time as clearly as possible - let me first, with
sadness, reflect upon the horrendous consequences of this most
pernicious theory of relativity.
The deepest theories of physics are by no means complete in
themselves,
with some relevance to engineering; they have an intimate connection
with individual and social life, by providing the practical basis for
individual and group thought structures. By outing the need for any
absolute frame of reference, Einstein's relativity implicitly gave
the license to all forms of individual and social thinking as equally
valid. Thus, the thinking of the child molester or serial killer is
as
valid - from the extension of Einstein's relativity to real life - as
the thinking of the law enforcer or saint. There is no basis for
differentiation between virtue and vice, between appearance and
reality. All are equally valid in the same relativist currency.
What
is truth, or what is lie, becomes merely a matter of opinion
announced
and imposed by the loudest and the strongest of the time.
Thus I see the stupidities, indecencies, and the extraordinary
bloody-mindedness of the 20th century (a century of world wars, mass
murders, extreme human inequalities; now leading to another dominated
by selfishness, fear and greed) as an indirect yet inescapable
consequence of Einstein's theories, to some extent. Men can turn
into self-important brats more easily, as their subconscious can now
find good excuse, from the supposedly undeniable basics of physics,
to
disregard absolute checks upon behaviour. Einstein himself showed
this, when he felt no constraints about writing a letter to the
President of the USA urging the development of the atomic bomb;
knowing
fully well that its development would cause immense evil.
For in a relativistic mental set-up, there can be no high and defined
end to aspire unto; there can be no striving for the realization of
absolute truths as fixed goals. There is, thus, only the scope of
degeneration of whatever remaining values that were handed down by
the
non-relativists of earlier generations. This is painfully evident
from
the moral atrophy and social degeneration in modern societies; as
also
from those failed communist regimes where the whims of dictators
became
the highest values for all.
______________________________¬_______________________
It is evident from the above (extracts from the paras 5.1 to 5.5 of
the
textbook "Physics of the atom) that the entire basis of Einstein's
theory of relativity depends upon the null result of the Michelson
-Morley interferometer experiment. This single fact is of vital
importance. Equally important is that analogy given earlier,
relating
to the swimmer; swimming parallel to, and perpendicular to, the
flowing
river. For based upon this analogy, and this analogy alone, was the
logic and also the mathematics for the analysis of the Michelson-
Morley
interferometer experiment developed.
Let us see how far this analogy relates to the dynamics of light on
this our moving earth. The diagram is redrawn below:
_____________________River Bank______________________
C
Speed of river -> v
Same distance L lies between A and C, and between A and D.
Speed of swimmer with respect to the water is c.

River Bank____ A________¬_____________D
We must note here, once again, that in this analogy A, C and D are
fixed floats on the river bed. So, while the swimmer himself is
affected by the flow of water, which gives him a higher or lower
speed
depending upon his direction, the floats are not affected at all.
They
are stuck to the river bed, and thus, have the same fixedness as the
river bank.
If this analogy (with respect to the motion of earth in ether) is
correct, then the subsequent mathematics (that gives us the famous
Lorentz transformation) is correct. But is this analogy correct?
For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
and
the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. Any
object
floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the river.
When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to drift) it is
implicitly given a velocity of -v, so that its net velocity with
respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=0.
This implicit, totally arbitrary giving of a negative velocity to the
float, equal to the velocity of the river flow, making it thus fixed
with respect to the river bank, was completely missed by all the
physicists, past and present. However, it is an absolute and
undeniable fact that all the stationary objects on Earth have the
same
velocity v around the Sun, since the Earth is moving with that
tangential speed around the Sun, according to Galileo and all later
non-Aristotelian astronomers. There is no way it is possible to give
any object on earth a negative velocity through some external ether
hook-up process! All objects on Earth move at the same speed v. So
we
do not see objects from Earth being left behind, as it were, as we
orbit the Sun! There is no way we can go to and from goal posts
fixed
in the ether reference! Nor can light travel to and from goal posts
fixed in the ether reference!
However, by fixing the floats on the river bed (which is the same
reference as the river bank) all the physicists have implicitly
assumed
all the above. They have kept the floats fixed in the ether
reference,
while implicitly holding they are in the Earthly reference. This
implies that the Earth is not moving at all! For if the Earth is
moving, there could be no question of keeping the floats fixed to the
river bed, for any valid analogy. They would have to drift with the
velocity v with respect to the river bank.
So the terrible mistake in this analogy was to keep the floats fixed
to
the river bed/ether, as opposed to letting it drift with the flow.
The
importance of this point simply cannot be overstated. When extended
to
the Michelson-Morley experimental set-up, this means - absolutely! -
that all the mirrors stay fixed in etheric space while the earth
moves
away from them with velocity v! Ridiculous! But this is exactly
what
must happen when we extend the analogy of the swimmers, with the
floats
drifting but fixed to the river bed, to the apparatus in the so-vital
Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment.
Bodies, and light, can, have to, and do travel to and from "goal
posts" fixed in the moving Earthly reference! There is simply no way
in which the mirrors used in the Michelson-Morley experiment can be
assumed to remain fixed in etheric space, while the Earth moves away
from the set-up! If we admit this, then we must allow that the
swimming analogy was flawed. The correct analogy would be to cut the
floats loose, and let them drift with the velocity v.
Now let us see the consequences of this change.
_____________________River Bank______________________
C C'
Speed of river -> v
Same distance L lies between A and C, and between A and D.
Speed of swimmer with respect to the water is c.
A A' D D'
______________________River Bank_______________________
The figure above shows the change of position of the float with time.
As earlier there are two equal lengths L, marked out by the
perpendicular course AC and the parallel course AD. (L=AC=AD). But
now the floats are *not* fixed to the river bed, so they drift with
velocity v. After time t, which is L/c, they move to the points A',
C' and D'.
t=L/c is the time the swimmer would have swum the lengths L in the
absence of flow, that is, with v=0.
So AA', DD' and CC' are all of length vt or vL/c.
Let us take the swimmer taking the route AD, parallel to the river
bank. He starts from A, towards D. He has the speed (c+v) as he is
swimming with the flow. Since the target float D is moving, the
swimmer now has to travel a further distance DD' to catch up. So, he
has actually swum the distance AD' instead of the earlier AD. AD'
= AD+DD'.
So he has swum the length L+vL/c, with the speed c+v. The time it
would take him to do that will be (L+vL/c)/(c+v).
Now (L+vL/c)/(c+v) = L(1+v/c)/(c+v) =L(1+v/c)/(c(1+v/c)) = L/c = t.
Which means, no matter what the speed of the river, the swimmer would
reach his goal float in the same time, provided the float was *not*
tethered, freely drifting instead.
Now let us consider the route AC, that is the one perpendicular to
the
river bank. The swimmer swims with velocity c in the perpendicular
direction, but is pushed sideways as a result of the flow. He has an
additional component of velocity thus, which pushes him sideways to
the
float which also has moved by the distance CC' in the time t. The
magnitude of the velocity of the swimmer, on his way to C' has to be
square root of (cc+vv).
The distance he covers is square root of (L*L + vt*vt) or square root
of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) or (L/c)*square root of (cc+vv). So the
time
taken to cover this distance will be distance/speed or L/c*square
root
of (cc+vv)/square root of (cc+vv) which is L/c which again is t.
So no matter whether the swimmer is swimming with the current or
perpendicular to the current - if the floats are drifting, he will
always cover the distances involved in exactly the same time as if
there was no flow in the water.
For the sake of completion, we now consider the return journeys in
both
the parallel and perpendicular directions.
_____________________River Bank______________________
C C' C''
Speed of river -> v
Same distance L lies between A and C, and between A and D.
Speed of swimmer with respect to the water is c.
A A' A'' D D' D''
______________________River Bank_______________________
Over the time 2t, the floats will have moved the distances AA'',
DD'' and CC''. The swimmer on the parallel path, having
reached the float at D, turns back towards the float and will meet it
at the point A''. The distance he now covers is D'A" which is
A'D'-A'A" or L-vt or L-vL/c or L(1-v/c). The speed of the
swimmer is (c-v) as he is going against the flow. So the time taken
by
the swimmer to reach the float on the return journey is L(1-v/c)/(c-
v)
or L(1-v/c)/(c(1-v/c)) = L/c = t.
In the perpendicular path, the swimmer covers the distance C'A''.
Using the earlier analysis, we can once again find that the time it
would take him to cover this distance would be t. (His speed would
be
the same as that going from A to C'; and the distance C'A'' is
also the same as AC'.)
We thus see that no matter what angle the direction of travel, the
time
for travel for a source between two points in a medium which has no
matter what velocity with respect to some fixed reference, is always
the same. This goes totally against all modern physics, which is
relativistic, and based upon the Lorentz transformation dealt with
earlier.
We now see what really happened in the Michelson-Morley
interferometer
experiment. The diagram is given again below, with some changes
following our earlier discussion.
C__C'
____ B
Light entry A A' A''
___________ // |D D'

______ observer (telescope, film)
Light going through A will be reflected by the mirror not at position
D
but at a further distance, at D'. The light will thus travel the
path AD' with the speed (c+v) which is the path AD+DD'; DD' being
the extra distance it will have to move, because the Earth is moving,
and the mirror along with everything else is fixed on the Earth.
Since
the Earth is moving, the mirror D moves the extra distance DD' by the
time the light starting from A reaches it. Since the Earth is
moving,
the partially silvered mirror at A moves the distance AA' when the
light originating from A reaches D'. On the return path, the light
will travel backwards from D', towards the partially silvered mirror,
with the speed (c-v) and will meet the partially silvered mirror at
A''. The partially silvered mirror will move the further distance
A'A" by the time it takes the returning beam of light to meet it.
Thus the formulation is exactly the same as it was in our case for
the
swimmer doing the parallel course. Both going and coming times will
be
exactly the same, that is t=L/c. Totally independent of the velocity
of the source of light!
In the perpendicular direction, the speed will be square root of
(cc+vv). Because of its initial speed v, the light will have to move
in on the moving mirror initially at C at an angle and with a higher
magnitude of velocity - just as any stone thrown out parallel to and
from a moving train, with respect to the ground. It will reach it at
the position C'. This light will also have to travel the extra
distance (square root of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) - L). As we have
seen, the time to cover this will be L/c=t. Again, this time is
totally independent of the velocity of the source of the light.
>From the above, it is clear that the return times are exactly the same
no matter what the direction of the light source. Thus, the rotation
of the whole apparatus - as was done - should not lead to any
change in results at all, relating to the interferometer pattern.
The
null result is entirely to be expected. A wrong analogy had led to a
wrong expectation. But with the correct analogy, the right results
(the null results) were obtained.
The consequences are drastic. The existence of ether as the medium
of
propagation of all electromagnetic waves (including light waves) is
upheld. It had been wrongly demolished. We also find that the speed
of light does change with the speed of the light emitting source. If
the speed of the light source is v, with respect to ether, then the
speed of light with respect to ether, when directed in the direction
of
v, is c+v. The null results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer
experiment confirm both of the above. The speed of light cannot be
constant, irrespective of the speed of the source.
To confirm this, let us now do the above analysis again. This time,
following Einstein's Postulate (given below, and quoted from the text
book), we take c to be always c and never anything more or less.
Thus
on the parallel path, the time taken to cover the distance AD' will
be (L+vL/c)/c and D'A" will take (L-vL/c)/c which is 2L/c or 2t.
However, in the perpendicular path, the times will be square root of
(L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c))/c. That is, t*square root of (1+vv/cc) for the
going path and the same for the return path, giving 2*t*square root
of
(1 + vv/cc). This is different from the parallel path, which is 2t.
So, if the speed c of light is always constant, and independent of
the
speed of the light-emitting source, as per the current thinking, then
the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment would have shown the
fringes, with our corrected analysis! How ironic!
All the Einsteinian constructions resulting from the Michelson-Morley
interferometer experiments are thus reduced to glaring nonsense. For
Einstein's first postulate, the basis behind all his theories of
relativity, namely,
ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELOCITY OF
LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE
as simply wrong. Wrong. Proved wrong, logically and mathematically,
using the results of painstakingly done experiments.
To make my point, further, with mathematics, for the general case of
light proceeding at any angle (and not just the two angles, zero
degrees and ninety degrees) let us consider the light source going at
an angle (theta) with respect to the parallel path. We use the same
notations (L,v,t,c) as used earlier.
Then, the velocity of light will be in that direction:
Square root of ((c*cos(theta)+v)^2 + (c*sin(theta)^2), by breaking up
the speed c along two the x-y components, and adding the flow speed v
to the parallel component. Note: the ^2 means squaring the bracketed
expression ahead of it. After expansion, the above expression
becomes
square root of (c*c + v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta)).
Within time t, the float/mirror will have moved the distance vt = vL/
c
along the parallel path. The distance the swimmer/light will have to
move is thus:
Square root of ((L*cos(theta)+v*L/c)^2 + (L*sin(theta)^2). Which
after
expansion becomes (L/c)*square root of (c*c + v*v +2v*c*cos(theta)).
Dividing the distance traveled by the speed of travel, we get the
time
as L/c for the general case of light proceeding at any angle from the
source as being t=L/c, completely independent of the velocity of v.
So what is really happening? What are the so-called relativistic
effects of Einstein, really? Really, what is happening (and this is
a
completely original thought, given right now) is that between any two
points on a body like Earth moving with a speed higher than zero with
respect to a fixed frame of reference; the actual distance traveled
by
a ray of light, from one point to the other, is usually different
from
the actual measured distance. So, if we mark out two points on
Earth,
and measure the distance between them carefully, then, the ray of
light
will always move a distance more or less than the marked distance,
except for just one particular angle. This angle can be found easily
from the above formula for the actual length traveled, thus by
putting
the expression
v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta) = 0;
or theta = inverse of cos(-v/(2*c)).
Arindam Banerjee.
Melbourne, August 2005.
Author's Note: This article can be freely distributed for discussion
strictly for non-commercial purposes only. Comments are welcome.
The
author is solely responsible for this article. All rights are
reserved.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<367c7b6f-43a9-4e87...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> On Jun 14, 11:39=A0pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 4:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>> Oops, I was wrong - I did see one nice Hindi movie after Agneepath:

>>> Bud-dah hoga tera baap, starring the great guru AB. =A0There too, there

>>> was einsteinian relativism for the old guy (no distinction between
>>> good and bad, just love for his son) but the beta fortunately had old-
>>> age absolute heroic values.
>>
>> Pretentious goddamn prick, first find out what relativism means, before
>> tacking on Einstein's name ahead of it.
>
> At your service, quotay.
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> time, sole god among lotsa devils.

> Note: bin =3D trash, rubbish, discard, etc.

> ______________________________=AC_________________________

> Time_parallel =3D L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) =3D 2Lc/(cc - vv).

> The other swimmer, going perpendicular to the water drift, spends the
> same time on each half of his trip, but he must head upstream if he
> is
> not to be carried away by the current. The component of his velocity
> that carries him toward his goal is the square root of (cc - vv) with
> respect to the earth. The total time for his trip also depends on
> the
> water drift, and is

> Time perpendicular =3D 2L/(square root of (cc - vv)).

> To see how these two times compare, we divide the parallel course
> time,
> by the perpendicular course time, to get

> Time parallel/Time perpendicular =3D 1/(square root of (1 - vv/cc))
> In still water v=3D0, the ratio of the times is unity, and the race is

> t =3D time difference =3D 2Lc/(cc-vv) - 2L/square root of(cc-vv) =3D

> Lvv/ccc after using the first two terms of the binomial expansion, to
> a
> good approximation if v<<c.
> In the interferometer, the time difference should appear as a fringe
> shift from the position the fringes would have if there were NO ether

> drift. The distance light moves in a time t is d=3Dct and if this
> distance represents n waves of wavelength W, then d=3DnW. Therefore
> the
> fringe shift would be n=3DLvv/(Wcc)

> Thus if the light race is carried out with speed of light c and
> wavelength W in an interferometer whose arms are of length L, one of
> which is parallel to the ether drift of velocity v, then the equation

> n=3DLvv/(Wcc) gives the number of fringes that should be displaced

> because of the motion of the earthe through the ether compared with
> their positions if the earth were AT REST in the ether.
> 5-4 The Michelson-Morley Experiment. The apparatus used was large
> and
> had its effective arm length increased to about 10 m by using
> additional mirrors to fold up the path. The entire apparatus was
> floated on mercury so that it could be rotated at constant speed
> without introducing strains that would deform the apparatus.
> ROTATION
> WAS NECESSARY in order to make the fringes shift, and by rotating
> through 90deg, first one arm and then the other could be made
> parallel
> to the drift, thereby doubling the fringe displacement given in the
> earlier equation. We can now estimate whether this instrument should
> be sensitive enough to detect the ether drift. Recall that at some
> time of the year the ether drift v was expected to be at least the
> orbital velocity of the earth, which is about .0001c. Thus we expect
> vv/cc to be at least 10**-8. Using light of wavelength 5*10**-7 m,
> the

> computed shift is n=3D0.4 fringe. Michelson and Morley estimated that

> ______________________________=AC_______________________

> It is evident from the above (extracts from the paras 5.1 to 5.5 of
> the
> textbook "Physics of the atom) that the entire basis of Einstein's
> theory of relativity depends upon the null result of the Michelson
> -Morley interferometer experiment. This single fact is of vital
> importance. Equally important is that analogy given earlier,
> relating
> to the swimmer; swimming parallel to, and perpendicular to, the
> flowing
> river. For based upon this analogy, and this analogy alone, was the
> logic and also the mathematics for the analysis of the Michelson-
> Morley
> interferometer experiment developed.
> Let us see how far this analogy relates to the dynamics of light on
> this our moving earth. The diagram is redrawn below:
> _____________________River Bank______________________
> C
> Speed of river -> v
> Same distance L lies between A and C, and between A and D.
> Speed of swimmer with respect to the water is c.
>

> River Bank____ A________=AC_____________D

> We must note here, once again, that in this analogy A, C and D are
> fixed floats on the river bed. So, while the swimmer himself is
> affected by the flow of water, which gives him a higher or lower
> speed
> depending upon his direction, the floats are not affected at all.
> They
> are stuck to the river bed, and thus, have the same fixedness as the
> river bank.
> If this analogy (with respect to the motion of earth in ether) is
> correct, then the subsequent mathematics (that gives us the famous
> Lorentz transformation) is correct. But is this analogy correct?
> For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
> and
> the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. Any
> object
> floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the river.
> When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to drift) it is
> implicitly given a velocity of -v, so that its net velocity with

> respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=3D0.

> perpendicular course AC and the parallel course AD. (L=3DAC=3DAD). But

> now the floats are *not* fixed to the river bed, so they drift with
> velocity v. After time t, which is L/c, they move to the points A',
> C' and D'.

> t=3DL/c is the time the swimmer would have swum the lengths L in the
> absence of flow, that is, with v=3D0.

> So AA', DD' and CC' are all of length vt or vL/c.
> Let us take the swimmer taking the route AD, parallel to the river
> bank. He starts from A, towards D. He has the speed (c+v) as he is
> swimming with the flow. Since the target float D is moving, the
> swimmer now has to travel a further distance DD' to catch up. So, he
> has actually swum the distance AD' instead of the earlier AD. AD'

> =3D AD+DD'.

> So he has swum the length L+vL/c, with the speed c+v. The time it
> would take him to do that will be (L+vL/c)/(c+v).

> Now (L+vL/c)/(c+v) =3D L(1+v/c)/(c+v) =3DL(1+v/c)/(c(1+v/c)) =3D L/c =3D t.

> or L(1-v/c)/(c(1-v/c)) =3D L/c =3D t.

> exactly the same, that is t=3DL/c. Totally independent of the velocity

> of the source of light!
> In the perpendicular direction, the speed will be square root of
> (cc+vv). Because of its initial speed v, the light will have to move
> in on the moving mirror initially at C at an angle and with a higher
> magnitude of velocity - just as any stone thrown out parallel to and
> from a moving train, with respect to the ground. It will reach it at
> the position C'. This light will also have to travel the extra
> distance (square root of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) - L). As we have

> seen, the time to cover this will be L/c=3Dt. Again, this time is

> Within time t, the float/mirror will have moved the distance vt =3D vL/

> c
> along the parallel path. The distance the swimmer/light will have to
> move is thus:
> Square root of ((L*cos(theta)+v*L/c)^2 + (L*sin(theta)^2). Which
> after
> expansion becomes (L/c)*square root of (c*c + v*v +2v*c*cos(theta)).
> Dividing the distance traveled by the speed of travel, we get the
> time
> as L/c for the general case of light proceeding at any angle from the

> source as being t=3DL/c, completely independent of the velocity of v.

> So what is really happening? What are the so-called relativistic
> effects of Einstein, really? Really, what is happening (and this is
> a
> completely original thought, given right now) is that between any two
> points on a body like Earth moving with a speed higher than zero with
> respect to a fixed frame of reference; the actual distance traveled
> by
> a ray of light, from one point to the other, is usually different
> from
> the actual measured distance. So, if we mark out two points on
> Earth,
> and measure the distance between them carefully, then, the ray of
> light
> will always move a distance more or less than the marked distance,
> except for just one particular angle. This angle can be found easily
> from the above formula for the actual length traveled, thus by
> putting
> the expression

> v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta) =3D 0;
> or theta =3D inverse of cos(-v/(2*c)).

> Arindam Banerjee.
> Melbourne, August 2005.
> Author's Note: This article can be freely distributed for discussion
> strictly for non-commercial purposes only. Comments are welcome.
> The
> author is solely responsible for this article. All rights are
> reserved.

The very fact that someone sets a boundary -- in the
present discussion the speed of light -- implies that
there is something more on the other side of it. It
follows that there are values for speed beyond the
currently measured speed of light.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)

<KalluM...@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"

<us...@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" <jos...@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 "fana...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "fan...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

Genius at Work (Big Bang Theory Disproven by 12-year-old boy)

About 150 posts here, some entertaining:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695647/posts

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 15, 1:32 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <367c7b6f-43a9-4e87-b2e9-300cd752a...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

Light is essentially a sequence of very brief travelling
electromagnetic waves caused by perturbed atoms, that propagate
through aether till the amplitude becomes submerged in the background
noise. The speed of light is actually the speed of this wave motion.
In dieletric such as glass, the speed of light is less than what it is
in free space (vacuum). (This is the reason why a stick dipped in
water appears bent.) Einsteinians,please note that the stick does not
actually bend when it is dipped into water, it only appears to bend.
So, appearances do not account for everything.

One may surmise the existence of other phenomena other than
electromagnetic waves, that we have not managed to find out so far.
For this, a good science fiction writer is required - to set
investigation along certain lines.

For instance, one may posit the future existence of elements with
atomic number say exceeding 130 or 200. These could well be stable.
Tools made with such elements may have extraordinary properties. If we
existed in space, and researched there, we may be able to create such
elements one day, that so far have not come across our scope.
Extraordinary effects may come from those elements, we can only
imagine them!

Maybe I will write about these things one day, today I am very glad
that the first physical proof of my book has arrived courtesy DHL.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

>
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>
> Genius at Work (Big Bang Theory Disproven by 12-year-old boy)
>
> About 150 posts here, some entertaining:
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695647/posts
>
> 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

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

On 6/14/2012 5:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:39 pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"
> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 4:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oops, I was wrong - I did see one nice Hindi movie after Agneepath:
>>> Bud-dah hoga tera baap, starring the great guru AB. There too, there
>>> was einsteinian relativism for the old guy (no distinction between
>>> good and bad, just love for his son) but the beta fortunately had old-
>>> age absolute heroic values.
>>
>> Pretentious goddamn prick, first find out what relativism means, before
>> tacking on Einstein's name ahead of it.
>
> At your service, quotay.
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> time, sole god among lotsa devils.
> Note: bin = trash, rubbish, discard, etc.
>

Arindumb (dim physics damn philosophy) Banerjee, whose obsession with
Einstein, an obsession matched only by that of Lady Kaka (aka the
Muckeraj) for padres, makes him see Einstein everywhere and in
everything. Since the concept of relativism seems to be really opaque to
you, I suggest that you obsess with a different "stein" for a while.
Read "Philosophical Investigations" by Wittgenstein (mostly a one-hit
wonder without copious output of papers and Usenet posts).

BTW, it is really amusing to see a claimed devout Hindu (not the Lady
Kaka kind of phony copy-paste Hindu) rail against "relativism", a
concept that is Hinduism's core idea - "ekam sat, vipraa: bahudha
vadanti." Yeah, that is from the Rg Veda, of which you have not got past
the first line.

[Zinnic]

By stating that the experiment "won't work" do you mean that there
will be a "null result" consistent with the inability of your internal
force to do useful work?

>> This would be much simpler and far less expensive than "blowing up" the bows of ships with an on board rail
> > gun.

> Should work.

So you believe that a model of a railgun inside the suspended
container would do useful work by inducing a swing in the direction of
the internal movement of the projected mass? Your genius should make
it a simple matter to devise a small-scale model. If it proves to
difficult for your genius, google for the description I previously
provided for a small battery-powered model.
Surely you agree that it is unreasonable to expect someone to
provide full-scale ships and railguns for possible total destruction
if you are not prepared to provide a 'working' model system?
Hope this helps
Zinnic

[Zinnic]

On Jun 14, 8:57 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <367c7b6f-43a9-4e87-b2e9-300cd752a...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:


I have decided NOT to "Read More" in this thread. It's content no
longer relates to the topic indicated by it's title.
Zinnic

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<16f04f83-47ab-4d0f...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > In article
> > > <367c7b6f-43a9-4e87-b2e9-300cd752a...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >

> > > > On Jun 14, 11:39=3DA0pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

> > > > <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 6/13/2012 4:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > > >>> Oops, I was wrong - I did see one nice Hindi movie after Agneepath:

> > > >>> Bud-dah hoga tera baap, starring the great guru AB. =3DA0There too,=

> there
> > > >>> was einsteinian relativism for the old guy (no distinction between

> > > >>> good and bad, just love for his son) but the beta fortunately had o=

> ld-
> > > >>> age absolute heroic values.
> >

> > > >> Pretentious goddamn prick, first find out what relativism means, bef=

> ore
> > > >> tacking on Einstein's name ahead of it.
> >
> > > > At your service, quotay.
> > > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> > > > time, sole god among lotsa devils.

> > > > Note: bin =3D3D trash, rubbish, discard, etc.

> >
> > > > Part of a 2005 article, copied from the main article below:
> >
> > > > Before I tackle the most fundamental issues relating to the
> > > > Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment - and yet again expose the
> > > > bungle there, this time as clearly as possible - let me first, with
> > > > sadness, reflect upon the horrendous consequences of this most
> > > > pernicious theory of relativity.
> > > > The deepest theories of physics are by no means complete in
> > > > themselves,
> > > > with some relevance to engineering; they have an intimate connection
> > > > with individual and social life, by providing the practical basis for

> > > > individual and group thought structures. =A0By outing the need for an=

> y
> > > > absolute frame of reference, Einstein's relativity implicitly gave
> > > > the license to all forms of individual and social thinking as equally

> > > > valid. =A0Thus, the thinking of the child molester or serial killer i=

> s
> > > > as
> > > > valid - from the extension of Einstein's relativity to real life - as

> > > > the thinking of the law enforcer or saint. =A0There is no basis for

> > > > differentiation between virtue and vice, between appearance and

> > > > reality. =A0All are equally valid in the same relativist currency.

> > > > What
> > > > is truth, or what is lie, becomes merely a matter of opinion
> > > > announced
> > > > and imposed by the loudest and the strongest of the time.
> > > > Thus I see the stupidities, indecencies, and the extraordinary
> > > > bloody-mindedness of the 20th century (a century of world wars, mass
> > > > murders, extreme human inequalities; now leading to another dominated
> > > > by selfishness, fear and greed) as an indirect yet inescapable

> > > > consequence of Einstein's theories, to some extent. =A0Men can turn

> > > > into self-important brats more easily, as their subconscious can now
> > > > find good excuse, from the supposedly undeniable basics of physics,
> > > > to

> > > > disregard absolute checks upon behaviour. =A0Einstein himself showed

> > > > this, when he felt no constraints about writing a letter to the
> > > > President of the USA urging the development of the atomic bomb;
> > > > knowing
> > > > fully well that its development would cause immense evil.
> > > > For in a relativistic mental set-up, there can be no high and defined
> > > > end to aspire unto; there can be no striving for the realization of

> > > > absolute truths as fixed goals. =A0There is, thus, only the scope of

> > > > degeneration of whatever remaining values that were handed down by
> > > > the

> > > > non-relativists of earlier generations. =A0This is painfully evident

> > > > from
> > > > the moral atrophy and social degeneration in modern societies; as
> > > > also
> > > > from those failed communist regimes where the whims of dictators
> > > > became
> > > > the highest values for all.
> >
> > > > A 2005 posting (full article)
> >
> > > > If we humans are to wander among your stars, we must first throw out

> > > > certain ridiculously wrong notions about physics. =A0The most startli=

> ng
> > > > of such nonsense relates to the theories of relativity, which reared
> > > > up

> > > > about a hundred years ago. =A0One of the most outrageous consequences

> > > > of
> > > > this theory, as put forward by its adherents, is that the general
> > > > public sincerely believes that travel is not possible beyond the
> > > > speed
> > > > of light; and it also believes that unlimited energy could be
> > > > obtained

> > > > from certain processing of seawater! =A0In the historical perspective=

> ,
> > > > this is rather like believing that the world is flat; and in the
> > > > basic
> > > > principle of alchemy, that is, base metals could be converted into
> > > > gold.
> > > > The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, with its famously
> > > > unexpected null results, is the sole source and also remains the core
> > > > hard undeniable scientific evidence for the theories of relativity.
> > > > One of the outstanding features about this experiment is that it is
> > > > simple in concept, and has been done with painstaking efforts by many
> > > > scientists.
> > > > In this article, I will quote exhaustively from a textbook (details
> > > > below) about the nature and philosophical background behind this
> > > > experiment and will pinpoint the great blunder that was made in the

> > > > analysis of the null results. =A0I will show as clearly as can be, th=
> e
> > > > nature of this blunder. =A0I hope and believe that the intelligent

> > > > reader
> > > > will understand the subtlety underlying this very fine error, and
> > > > grasp
> > > > the enormous and highly positive consequences - with the
> > > > re-invigoration of physics from the most fundamental level.
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > Melbourne, July 2005.
> > > > Reference:
> > > > Textbook Details:
> > > > "Physics of the Atom", by M. Russell Wehr and James A. Richards,
> > > > Jr. of the Department of Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology.
> > > > Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
> > > > First Printed in 1964.

> > > > ______________________________=3DAC_________________________
> > > > "This book is neither a treatise nor a survey. =A0It is a textbook

> > > > which bridges the gap between classical physics and the present

> > > > frontiers of physical investigation." =A0- extract from the Preface, =
> by
> > > > the writers. =A0Philadelphia, Pa., July 1959.

> > > > Chapter 5 - Relativity (excerpts)
> > > > Pg111 ->

> > > > 5-1 =A0Consider the interpretations of physical events that might be
> > > > made
> > > > by a person of high IQ born and brought up on =A0a merry-go-round. =
> =A0He
> > > > would experience a force somewhat like the force of gravity. =A0It

> > > > would
> > > > be down at the centre of rotation, and, because of the centrifugal
> > > > component, it would be directed down and out at points away from the
> > > > centre.
> > > > If our merry-go-round observer were to have the genius to devise a
> > > > whole system of mechanics, the mechanics he would devise would not be
> > > > the mechanics of Newton.
> > > > For Newton's laws to be valid precisely, we must observe events from
> > > > what is called an inertial frame of a Galilean-Newtonian co-ordinate

> > > > system. =A0Such a system is one which has no acceleration. =A0The who=

> le
> > > > structure of classical physics, then, is based on the assumption that
> > > > we interpret all events as they would be interpreted by an observer
> > > > whose viewpoint is an inertial reference frame.
> > > > The genius of Newton is, in part, that although he never could step
> > > > off

> > > > the earth physically, he did step off it mentally. =A0He interpreted
> > > > events as though he had no acceleration. =A0Because of this shift in

> > > > his
> > > > viewpoint, he was able to write his laws of mechanics in the
> > > > particularly simple form that he did.
> > > > But Newton never really knew where he projected himself to, and this

> > > > worried him. =A0He excluded the earth as a vantage point because the
> > > > earth not only rotates but revolves around the sun. =A0The sun offere=

> d
> > > > possibilities, but even the sun moves and is probably accelerated

> > > > through space. =A0The stellar constellations were named by the ancien=

> ts
> > > > and the stability of their arrangement led to their being called the

> > > > "fixed" stars. =A0Yet it would be the strangest of co-incidences if

> > > > the "fixed" stars really were fixed.
> > > > It would seem that, however, that if we locate a frame of reference
> > > > so
> > > > that it is fixed relative to the stars, this vantage point will be
> > > > sufficiently steady for Newton's laws to serve well for every

> > > > practical purpose. =A0Such a vantage point is good enough for the

> > > > practical men who want to fly aircraft, etc. But for a philosopher or
> > > > physicist whose primary concern is the understanding of the nature of
> > > > things and whose goal is the discovery of truth, uncertainty about
> > > > the
> > > > frame of reference represented a serious flaw in the logical
> > > > structure
> > > > of classical physics.

> > > > 5-2 =A0The search for something more fixed than the stars went
> > > > something
> > > > like this. =A0James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that electricity and
> > > > light
> > > > are related phenomena. =A0Starting with known properties of electrici=

> ty
> > > > and magnetism, Maxwell derived equations which are identical in form
> > > > to

> > > > the equations which describe many wave phenomena. =A0He could

> > > > demonstrate, furthermore, that the velocity of the waves he
> > > > discovered

> > > > was the same as the velocity of light. =A0He could derive many other

> > > > properties of light, and it was soon accepted that he had put the
> > > > wave

> > > > theory of light on a firm foundation. =A0In this theory, light is an
> > > > electromagnetic wave motion.
> > > > Every wave motion has something that "waves". =A0 Surely, it was

> > > > argued, light waves must involve the waving of something even in free

> > > > space. =A0No one knew what it was, but it was given the name
> > > > "luminiferous ether".
> > > > Light passes through many kinds of materials. =A0It passes through

> > > > relatively heavy materials like glass, and it passes through the
> > > > nearly

> > > > perfect vacuum that must lie between the stars and the earth. =A0Thus

> > > > ether must permeate all of space.
> > > > However fanciful it may seem to us, physicists felt that this ether
> > > > might be just the thing to which to attach a Newtonian co-ordinate

> > > > system. =A0It was conceived that Newton's laws would hold exactly for

> > > > an observer moving without acceleration relative to the ether.
> > > > If the ether is assumed to be at rest, then the interesting question

> > > > is: How fast are we moving through the ether? =A0Since all speculatio=

> ns
> > > > about the ether stem from its properties as a medium for carrying

> > > > light, an optical experiment is indicated. =A0It is not hard to compu=

> te
> > > > how sensitive the apparatus must be to measure the ether drift.
> > > > Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the sun has no ether drift,
> > > > the velocity of the earth through the ether must be its orbital

> > > > velocity. =A0If the sun has an ether drift, then the drift of the ear=

> th
> > > > will be even greater than its orbital velocity at some seasons.
> > > > Knowing that the earth's orbit is about 93 million miles, we can find

> > > > the orbital velocity to be about 18.5 miles per second. =A0By

> > > > performing
> > > > the experiment at the best season of the year, we know that we should

> > > > be able to find an ether drift of at least 18.5 mi/sec. =A0The veloci=
> ty
> > > > of light is 186,000 mi/sec. =A0Great as our orbital velocity is, it i=

> s
> > > > only .0001 times the velocity of light; so it is evident that a very
> > > > sensitive instrument is required.

> > > > 5-3 =A0A device of sufficient sensitivity was made and used in the
> > > > United
> > > > States by Michelson and Morley in 1887. =A0The principle of their

> > > > apparatus is brought out by the following analogy.
> > > > Suppose two equally fast swimmers undertake a race in a river between
> > > > floats anchored to the river bed.
> > > > (Arindam's note: please note the expression - "floats anchored to
> > > > the river bed" meaning that they are stuck to the ground, or the

> > > > inertial frame of reference. =A0Also let us mutter here, with Galileo=

> ,
> > > > that the earth, it moves!)
> > > > _____________________River Bank______________________

> > > > =A0 C

> > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Same distance L lies between A and C,=
> and A and D.
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Speed of swimmer with respect to t=
> he water is c.
> > > > =A0A =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0D

> > > > ______________________River Bank_______________________
> > > > Two equal courses, each having a total length 2L, are laid out from
> > > > the

> > > > starting point, float A. =A0One course is AD, parallel to the flow of

> > > > the
> > > > river relative to the earth, and the other AC, perpendicular to it.
> > > > How will the times compare if each of the swimmers goes out and back
> > > > on

> > > > his course? =A0Let the speed of each swimmer relative to the water be

> > > > c,
> > > > and let the water drift or velocity with respect to the earth be v.
> > > > When the swimmer on the parallel course goes downstream, his velocity
> > > > will add to that of the water, giving him a resultant velocity of (c
> > > > +v)

> > > > with respect to the earth. =A0The time required for him to swim the
> > > > distance L from A to D is L/(c+v). =A0On his return, he must overcome
> > > > the
> > > > water drift. =A0His net velocity then is (c-v), and his return time i=
> s
> > > > L/(c-v). =A0His total time is the sum of these two times. This is giv=
> en
> > > > by
> > > > Time_parallel =3D3D L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) =3D3D 2Lc/(cc - vv).

> > > > The other swimmer, going perpendicular to the water drift, spends the
> > > > same time on each half of his trip, but he must head upstream if he
> > > > is

> > > > not to be carried away by the current. =A0The component of his veloci=

> ty
> > > > that carries him toward his goal is the square root of (cc - vv) with

> > > > respect to the earth. =A0The total time for his trip also depends on

> > > > the
> > > > water drift, and is

> > > > Time perpendicular =3D3D 2L/(square root of (cc - vv)).

> > > > To see how these two times compare, we divide the parallel course
> > > > time,
> > > > by the perpendicular course time, to get

> > > > Time parallel/Time perpendicular =3D3D 1/(square root of (1 - vv/cc))
> > > > In still water v=3D3D0, the ratio of the times is unity, and the race=
> is
> > > > a
> > > > tie, as we would expect. =A0In slowly moving water, the ratio is

> > > > greater
> > > > than unity and the swimmer on the perpendicular course wins; or put
> > > > differently, if the swimmers are stroking in phase when they leave

> > > > float A, they will be out of phase when they return to it. =A0If the

> > > > velocity of the river increases to nearly that of the swimmer, then
> > > > the

> > > > ratio tends towards infinity. =A0If the river velocity exceeds the
> > > > swimmer velocity, the entire analysis breaks down. =A0The ratio becom=

> es
> > > > imaginary and both swimmers are swept off the course by the current.
> > > > The point is that, by observing the race, the velocity of the water
> > > > relative to the system of anchored floats can be measured.
> > > > The optical equivalent of the above situation is to have a race
> > > > between
> > > > two light rays over identical courses, one parallel and one

> > > > perpendicular to the ether drift. =A0The instrument used, is called a

> > > > Michelson interferometer, is shown schematically below.

> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0_C_ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0.
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0_B_
> > > > =A0 Light entry
> > > > _________A //_______________D
> >
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ____observer (eye, telescope)
> > > > Light enters the apparatus from the source at the left. =A0At A it

> > > > strikes a glass mirror (angled at 45 deg) which has a half-silvered

> > > > surface. =A0Half the light is reflected up toward B and C, while the

> > > > other half refracts at both surfaces of A and emerges parallel to the

> > > > original beam and goes on to D. =A0Both C and D are full-silvered,
> > > > front-surface mirrors which turn their beams back towards A. =A0The

> > > > beam
> > > > from C is partly reflected at A, but part of that beam refracts
> > > > through

> > > > A and goes to the observer. =A0The beam from D partially refracts

> > > > through
> > > > A and is lost, but part of the beam is also reflected toward the

> > > > observer. =A0The plate of glass at B has the same thickness and

> > > > inclination as that at A, so that the two light paths from source to

> > > > observer pass through the same number of glass thicknesses. =A0If the

> > > > light from the slit did not diverge and remained very narrow in going

> > > > through the apparatus, the observer would see a line of light. =A0The

> > > > brightness of this line would depend on the difference in the optical

> > > > length* of the two light paths. =A0(*Footnote: Two paths have the sam=

> e
> > > > optical length if light traverses both in the same time.
> > > > The optical lengths of the interferometer paths can be changed by
> > > > changing their physical length, by changing the index of refraction
> > > > of
> > > > the region through which the light passes, or, if the swimming
> > > > analogy
> > > > applies, by moving the apparatus relative to the light-carrying

> > > > medium.) =A0If these (optical lengths) differed by any whole number o=

> f
> > > > wavelengths of the light (including zero) the line would be bright.
> > > > If
> > > > the path differed by an odd number of half-wavelengths, then the line

> > > > would be dark. =A0Between these extremes every brightness gradation
> > > > would
> > > > be observed. =A0In practice, light does diverge in the apparatus, and

> > > > there are a great many slightly different paths being traversed

> > > > simultaneously. =A0Consequently the observer does not see but a
> > > > multiplicity of lines. =A0The loci of points where the paths differ b=

> y
> > > > whole wavelengths are bright, and where the paths differ by an odd

> > > > number of half-wavelengths there is darkness. =A0Thus, as one path

> > > > length
> > > > is varied, the observer sees fringes, like the teeth of a comb, move
> > > > across the field, rather than a single line becoming lighter and

> > > > darker. =A0It is fortunate that the optical system works as it does,

> > > > since it is easier for the eye to detect differences in position than
> > > > differences in intensity.
> > > > The precision of this device is remarkable. If yellow light from
> > > > Sodium

> > > > is used, the wavelength is 5.893*10**-7 m. =A0Moving the mirror C awa=

> y
> > > > from A one-half this distance will increase one path length by a
> > > > whole
> > > > wavelength and cause the pattern to move an amount equal to the

> > > > separation of two adjacent dark lines. =A0If we can estimate to

> > > > hundredths of fringes, then the smallest detectable motion is only
> > > > 2.9*10**-9m.
> > > > The similarity between the Michelson interferometer and the swimming

> > > > race should be evident. =A0Light corresponds to the swimmers and has
> > > > the
> > > > free-space velocity, c, with respect to the ether medium. =A0The ethe=

> r
> > > > drift corresponds to the water current drift and has the velocity v

> > > > with respect to the earth. =A0Just as we could learn about the river

> > > > flow
> > > > by seeing the outcome of the swimmers' race, so we wish to measure
> > > > the ether drift by conducting a "light race" over equal paths
> > > > parallel and perpendicular to the ether drift.
> > > > Suppose that instead of taking the ratio of the times for the two
> > > > paths
> > > > of the river race we now take their difference; then

> > > > t =3D3D time difference =3D3D 2Lc/(cc-vv) - 2L/square root of(cc-vv) =
> =3D3D

> > > > Lvv/ccc after using the first two terms of the binomial expansion, to
> > > > a
> > > > good approximation if v<<c.
> > > > In the interferometer, the time difference should appear as a fringe
> > > > shift from the position the fringes would have if there were NO ether

> > > > drift. =A0The distance light moves in a time t is d=3D3Dct and if thi=
> s
> > > > distance represents n waves of wavelength W, then d=3D3DnW. =A0Theref=
> ore
> > > > the
> > > > fringe shift would be n=3D3DLvv/(Wcc)

> > > > Thus if the light race is carried out with speed of light c and
> > > > wavelength W in an interferometer whose arms are of length L, one of
> > > > which is parallel to the ether drift of velocity v, then the equation

> > > > n=3D3DLvv/(Wcc) gives the number of fringes that should be displaced

> > > > because of the motion of the earthe through the ether compared with
> > > > their positions if the earth were AT REST in the ether.

> > > > 5-4 The Michelson-Morley Experiment. =A0The apparatus used was large

> > > > and
> > > > had its effective arm length increased to about 10 m by using

> > > > additional mirrors to fold up the path. =A0The entire apparatus was

> > > > floated on mercury so that it could be rotated at constant speed
> > > > without introducing strains that would deform the apparatus.
> > > > ROTATION
> > > > WAS NECESSARY in order to make the fringes shift, and by rotating
> > > > through 90deg, first one arm and then the other could be made
> > > > parallel
> > > > to the drift, thereby doubling the fringe displacement given in the

> > > > earlier equation. =A0We can now estimate whether this instrument shou=
> ld
> > > > be sensitive enough to detect the ether drift. =A0Recall that at some

> > > > time of the year the ether drift v was expected to be at least the

> > > > orbital velocity of the earth, which is about .0001c. =A0Thus we expe=
> ct
> > > > vv/cc to be at least 10**-8. =A0Using light of wavelength 5*10**-7 m,
> > > > the
> > > > computed shift is n=3D3D0.4 fringe. =A0Michelson and Morley estimated=
> that
> > > > they could detect a shift of 0.01 fringe. =A0Sensitivity to spare!

> > > > Measurements were made over an extended period of time at all seasons

> > > > of the year, but no significant fringe shift was observed. =A0Thinkin=

> g
> > > > that the earth might drag a little either along with it just as a
> > > > boat
> > > > carries a thin layer of water when it glides, Michelson and Morley
> > > > took
> > > > the entire apparatus to a mountain laboratory in search of a site
> > > > which

> > > > would project into the drifting ether. =A0Again a diligent search
> > > > failed
> > > > to measure an ether drift. =A0The experiment "failed".
> > > > Few experimental failures have been more stimulating than this. =A0Th=

> e
> > > > negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment presented a

> > > > challenge to explain its failure. =A0Fitzgerald and Lorentz presented
> > > > an
> > > > ad hoc explanation. =A0They pointed out that there might be an

> > > > interaction between the ether and objects moving relative to it, such
> > > > that the object became shorter in all its dimensions parallel to the

> > > > relative velocity. =A0Recall that in the flowing water analogy the

> > > > ratio
> > > > of the times of the swimmers was
> > > > 1/square-root of (1-vv/cc).
> > > > If the route parallel to the flow had been shorter by this factor,
> > > > then
> > > > the ratio of the times would have been one and the race would have
> > > > been
> > > > a tie. A similar shortening of the parallel interferometer arm would

> > > > account for the tie race Michelson and Morley always observed. =A0The

> > > > shortening could never be measured because any rule used to measure
> > > > it
> > > > would also be moving relative to the ether and would shorten also.
> > > > Whether you accept the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis or
> > > > not, the Michelson-Morley experiment indicates that all observers who
> > > > measure the velocity of light will get the same result regardless of
> > > > their own velocity through space.

> > > > 5-5 The constant velocity of light. =A0Michelson and Morley found tha=

> t
> > > > the speed of the earth through space made no difference in the speed
> > > > of

> > > > light relative to them. =A0The inference is clear: either that the

> > > > earth
> > > > moves in some way through ether space more slowly than it moves about
> > > > the sun, or that ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THAT THEIR MOTION THROUGH
> > > > SPACE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THEM.
> > > > The above inference was clear, at least to Einstein, who took the
> > > > second alternative and made it a cornerstone of his special theory of
> > > > relativity.
> > > > Recall that the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out to
> > > > measure
> > > > the speed of the earth relative to the ether in order to establish a

> > > > frame of reference relative to which Newton's laws would hold. =A0The

> > > > failure of that experiment meant that the search for the fixed
> > > > reference system must be made by another technique or abandoned

> > > > altogether. =A0Einstein explored the alternative of abandonment. =A0H=

> e
> > > > asked himself where he would stand (both literally and figuratively)
> > > > if

> > > > there were no "Newtonian" frame of reference. =A0In this case there

> > > > could be no absolute velocities, for every velocity would have to be
> > > > measured relative to an origin that might and probably would be
> > > > moving.

> > > > =A0Since there can be no preferred frame of reference, any frame must
> > > > be
> > > > as good as any other. =A0To be universal, the laws of physics must be

> > > > the
> > > > same for all observers regardless of any motion they may have.
> > > > Contrary to the first paragraphs of this chapter, one's viewpoint
> > > > MUST MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in one's interpretation of events observed.
> > > > If he is to be correct, the man born and brought up on a merry-go-
> > > > round
> > > > must deduce the same laws of physics as anyone else.
> > > > **** End of exhaustive quotations from the textbook "Physics of the

> > > > Atom", from 5-1 to 5-5. =A0The following sections, in brief, are abou=

> t:
> > > > 5-6 General and Special theories of relativity.
> > > > 5-7 Classical Relativity

> > > > 5-8 Einsteinian Relativity. =A0Quote: p123 The Michelson-Morley

> > > > experiment was based on the assumption that since the classical
> > > > velocity transformation is not invariant, it should be possible to
> > > > measure the velocity of light in the ether relative to the earth.
> > > > The
> > > > experiment demonstrated that at least one velocity is invariant - the

> > > > velocity of light. =A0Einstein accepted this as a second fundamental
> > > > assumption of this special theory of relativity. =A0He postulated tha=

> t:
> > > > (2) ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELOCITY
> > > > OF LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE.
> > > > 5-9 Relativistic space-time transformation equations.
> > > > 5-10 The relativistic velocity transformation
> > > > 5-11 Relativistic mass transformation
> > > > 5-12 Relativistic mass-energy equivalence
> > > > 5-13 The upper limit of velocity
> > > > 5-14 Examples of relativistic calculations
> > > > 5-15 Pair production

> > > > 5-16 Summary. =A0We have seen how Einstein's attention to a flaw in

> > > > logic in Newtonian mechanics led him to consider the importance of an

> > > > observer's viewpoint. =A0We have seen how the "failure" of the

> > > > Michelson-Morley experiment led Einstein to assign special
> > > > significance

> > > > to the velocity of light in free space. =A0We have seen how these

> > > > considerations led to new concepts of space, time, mass, energy, and

> > > > matter. =A0When we realize that this was but one of Einstein's

> > > > achievements, we begin to sense the magnitude of his contribution to
> > > > human thought.
> > > > (End of quotes from the book "Physics of the Atom".)
> > > > Before I tackle the most fundamental issues relating to the
> > > > Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment - and yet again expose the
> > > > bungle there, this time as clearly as possible - let me first, with
> > > > sadness, reflect upon the horrendous consequences of this most
> > > > pernicious theory of relativity.
> > > > The deepest theories of physics are by no means complete in
> > > > themselves,
> > > > with some relevance to engineering; they have an intimate connection
> > > > with individual and social life, by providing the practical basis for

> > > > individual and group thought structures. =A0By outing the need for an=

> y
> > > > absolute frame of reference, Einstein's relativity implicitly gave
> > > > the license to all forms of individual and social thinking as equally

> > > > valid. =A0Thus, the thinking of the child molester or serial killer i=

> s
> > > > as
> > > > valid - from the extension of Einstein's relativity to real life - as

> > > > the thinking of the law enforcer or saint. =A0There is no basis for

> > > > differentiation between virtue and vice, between appearance and

> > > > reality. =A0All are equally valid in the same relativist currency.

> > > > What
> > > > is truth, or what is lie, becomes merely a matter of opinion
> > > > announced
> > > > and imposed by the loudest and the strongest of the time.
> > > > Thus I see the stupidities, indecencies, and the extraordinary
> > > > bloody-mindedness of the 20th century (a century of world wars, mass
> > > > murders, extreme human inequalities; now leading to another dominated
> > > > by selfishness, fear and greed) as an indirect yet inescapable

> > > > consequence of Einstein's theories, to some extent. =A0Men can turn

> > > > into self-important brats more easily, as their subconscious can now
> > > > find good excuse, from the supposedly undeniable basics of physics,
> > > > to

> > > > disregard absolute checks upon behaviour. =A0Einstein himself showed

> > > > this, when he felt no constraints about writing a letter to the
> > > > President of the USA urging the development of the atomic bomb;
> > > > knowing
> > > > fully well that its development would cause immense evil.
> > > > For in a relativistic mental set-up, there can be no high and defined
> > > > end to aspire unto; there can be no striving for the realization of

> > > > absolute truths as fixed goals. =A0There is, thus, only the scope of

> > > > degeneration of whatever remaining values that were handed down by
> > > > the

> > > > non-relativists of earlier generations. =A0This is painfully evident

> > > > from
> > > > the moral atrophy and social degeneration in modern societies; as
> > > > also
> > > > from those failed communist regimes where the whims of dictators
> > > > became
> > > > the highest values for all.

> > > > ______________________________=3DAC_______________________

> > > > It is evident from the above (extracts from the paras 5.1 to 5.5 of
> > > > the
> > > > textbook "Physics of the atom) that the entire basis of Einstein's
> > > > theory of relativity depends upon the null result of the Michelson

> > > > -Morley interferometer experiment. =A0This single fact is of vital
> > > > importance. =A0Equally important is that analogy given earlier,

> > > > relating
> > > > to the swimmer; swimming parallel to, and perpendicular to, the
> > > > flowing

> > > > river. =A0For based upon this analogy, and this analogy alone, was th=

> e
> > > > logic and also the mathematics for the analysis of the Michelson-
> > > > Morley
> > > > interferometer experiment developed.
> > > > Let us see how far this analogy relates to the dynamics of light on

> > > > this our moving earth. =A0The diagram is redrawn below:
> > > > _____________________River Bank______________________
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 C

> > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 Same distance L lies between A and C, and between A and D=
> .
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Speed of swimmer with respect to the wate=
> r is c.
> >
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 River Bank____ A________=3DAC_____________D

> > > > We must note here, once again, that in this analogy A, C and D are

> > > > fixed floats on the river bed. =A0So, while the swimmer himself is

> > > > affected by the flow of water, which gives him a higher or lower
> > > > speed
> > > > depending upon his direction, the floats are not affected at all.
> > > > They
> > > > are stuck to the river bed, and thus, have the same fixedness as the
> > > > river bank.
> > > > If this analogy (with respect to the motion of earth in ether) is
> > > > correct, then the subsequent mathematics (that gives us the famous

> > > > Lorentz transformation) is correct. =A0But is this analogy correct?

> > > > For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
> > > > and

> > > > the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. =A0Any

> > > > object
> > > > floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the river.
> > > > When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to drift) it is
> > > > implicitly given a velocity of -v, so that its net velocity with

> > > > respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=3D3D0.

> > > > This implicit, totally arbitrary giving of a negative velocity to the
> > > > float, equal to the velocity of the river flow, making it thus fixed
> > > > with respect to the river bank, was completely missed by all the

> > > > physicists, past and present. =A0However, it is an absolute and

> > > > undeniable fact that all the stationary objects on Earth have the
> > > > same
> > > > velocity v around the Sun, since the Earth is moving with that
> > > > tangential speed around the Sun, according to Galileo and all later

> > > > non-Aristotelian astronomers. =A0There is no way it is possible to gi=

> ve
> > > > any object on earth a negative velocity through some external ether

> > > > hook-up process! =A0All objects on Earth move at the same speed v. =
> =A0So

> > > > we
> > > > do not see objects from Earth being left behind, as it were, as we

> > > > orbit the Sun! =A0There is no way we can go to and from goal posts
> > > > fixed
> > > > in the ether reference! =A0Nor can light travel to and from goal post=

> s
> > > > fixed in the ether reference!
> > > > However, by fixing the floats on the river bed (which is the same
> > > > reference as the river bank) all the physicists have implicitly
> > > > assumed

> > > > all the above. =A0They have kept the floats fixed in the ether
> > > > reference,
> > > > while implicitly holding they are in the Earthly reference. =A0This
> > > > implies that the Earth is not moving at all! =A0For if the Earth is

> > > > moving, there could be no question of keeping the floats fixed to the

> > > > river bed, for any valid analogy. =A0They would have to drift with th=

> e
> > > > velocity v with respect to the river bank.
> > > > So the terrible mistake in this analogy was to keep the floats fixed
> > > > to
> > > > the river bed/ether, as opposed to letting it drift with the flow.
> > > > The

> > > > importance of this point simply cannot be overstated. =A0When extende=

> d
> > > > to
> > > > the Michelson-Morley experimental set-up, this means - absolutely! -
> > > > that all the mirrors stay fixed in etheric space while the earth
> > > > moves

> > > > away from them with velocity v! =A0 Ridiculous! =A0But this is exactl=

> y
> > > > what
> > > > must happen when we extend the analogy of the swimmers, with the
> > > > floats
> > > > drifting but fixed to the river bed, to the apparatus in the so-vital
> > > > Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment.
> > > > Bodies, and light, can, have to, and do travel to and from "goal

> > > > posts" fixed in the moving Earthly reference! =A0There is simply no w=

> ay
> > > > in which the mirrors used in the Michelson-Morley experiment can be
> > > > assumed to remain fixed in etheric space, while the Earth moves away

> > > > from the set-up! =A0If we admit this, then we must allow that the
> > > > swimming analogy was flawed. =A0The correct analogy would be to cut t=

> he
> > > > floats loose, and let them drift with the velocity v.
> > > > Now let us see the consequences of this change.
> > > > _____________________River Bank______________________

> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 C =A0C'

> > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Same distance L lies between A and C, and between A a=
> nd D.
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Speed of swimmer with respect to the wate=
> r is c.
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 A =A0A' =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0D =A0D'

> > > > ______________________River Bank_______________________
> > > > The figure above shows the change of position of the float with time.
> > > > As earlier there are two equal lengths L, marked out by the

> > > > perpendicular course AC and the parallel course AD. =A0(L=3D3DAC=3D3D=
> AD). =A0But

> > > > now the floats are *not* fixed to the river bed, so they drift with

> > > > velocity v. =A0After time t, which is L/c, they move to the points A'=

> ,
> > > > C' and D'.

> > > > t=3D3DL/c is the time the swimmer would have swum the lengths L in th=
> e
> > > > absence of flow, that is, with v=3D3D0.

> > > > So AA', DD' and CC' are all of length vt or vL/c.
> > > > Let us take the swimmer taking the route AD, parallel to the river

> > > > bank. =A0He starts from A, towards D. =A0He has the speed (c+v) as he=
> is
> > > > swimming with the flow. =A0Since the target float D is moving, the
> > > > swimmer now has to travel a further distance DD' to catch up. =A0So, =
> he
> > > > has actually swum the distance AD' instead of the earlier AD. =A0AD'
> > > > =3D3D AD+DD'.
> > > > So he has swum the length L+vL/c, with the speed c+v. =A0The time it

> > > > would take him to do that will be (L+vL/c)/(c+v).

> > > > Now (L+vL/c)/(c+v) =3D3D L(1+v/c)/(c+v) =3D3DL(1+v/c)/(c(1+v/c)) =3D3=
> D L/c =3D3D t.

> > > > Which means, no matter what the speed of the river, the swimmer would
> > > > reach his goal float in the same time, provided the float was *not*
> > > > tethered, freely drifting instead.
> > > > Now let us consider the route AC, that is the one perpendicular to
> > > > the

> > > > river bank. =A0The swimmer swims with velocity c in the perpendicular
> > > > direction, but is pushed sideways as a result of the flow. =A0He has =

> an
> > > > additional component of velocity thus, which pushes him sideways to
> > > > the

> > > > float which also has moved by the distance CC' in the time t. =A0The

> > > > magnitude of the velocity of the swimmer, on his way to C' has to be
> > > > square root of (cc+vv).
> > > > The distance he covers is square root of (L*L + vt*vt) or square root

> > > > of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) or (L/c)*square root of (cc+vv). =A0So the

> > > > time
> > > > taken to cover this distance will be distance/speed or L/c*square
> > > > root
> > > > of (cc+vv)/square root of (cc+vv) which is L/c which again is t.
> > > > So no matter whether the swimmer is swimming with the current or
> > > > perpendicular to the current - if the floats are drifting, he will
> > > > always cover the distances involved in exactly the same time as if
> > > > there was no flow in the water.
> > > > For the sake of completion, we now consider the return journeys in
> > > > both
> > > > the parallel and perpendicular directions.
> > > > _____________________River Bank______________________

> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0C =A0C' C''

> > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Same distance L lies between A and C, and between A an=
> d D.
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Speed of swimmer with respect to the water is c.
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0A =A0A' =A0A'' =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
> =A0 D =A0D' D''

> > > > ______________________River Bank_______________________
> > > > Over the time 2t, the floats will have moved the distances AA'',

> > > > DD'' and CC''. =A0The swimmer on the parallel path, having

> > > > reached the float at D, turns back towards the float and will meet it

> > > > at the point A''. =A0The distance he now covers is D'A" which is
> > > > A'D'-A'A" or L-vt or L-vL/c or L(1-v/c). =A0The speed of the
> > > > swimmer is (c-v) as he is going against the flow. =A0So the time take=

> n
> > > > by
> > > > the swimmer to reach the float on the return journey is L(1-v/c)/(c-
> > > > v)

> > > > or L(1-v/c)/(c(1-v/c)) =3D3D L/c =3D3D t.

> > > > In the perpendicular path, the swimmer covers the distance C'A''.

> > > > =A0Using the earlier analysis, we can once again find that the time i=
> t
> > > > would take him to cover this distance would be t. =A0(His speed would

> > > > be
> > > > the same as that going from A to C'; and the distance C'A'' is
> > > > also the same as AC'.)
> > > > We thus see that no matter what angle the direction of travel, the
> > > > time
> > > > for travel for a source between two points in a medium which has no
> > > > matter what velocity with respect to some fixed reference, is always

> > > > the same. =A0This goes totally against all modern physics, which is

> > > > relativistic, and based upon the Lorentz transformation dealt with
> > > > earlier.
> > > > We now see what really happened in the Michelson-Morley
> > > > interferometer

> > > > experiment. =A0The diagram is given again below, with some changes
> > > > following our earlier discussion.
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 C__C'
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ____ B
> > > > =A0 Light entry =A0 =A0 A =A0A' A''
> > > > ___________ =A0 =A0 // =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> =A0 =A0 |D =A0D'
> >
> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ______ observer (telescope, film)

> > > > Light going through A will be reflected by the mirror not at position
> > > > D

> > > > but at a further distance, at D'. =A0The light will thus travel the

> > > > path AD' with the speed (c+v) which is the path AD+DD'; DD' being
> > > > the extra distance it will have to move, because the Earth is moving,
> > > > and the mirror along with everything else is fixed on the Earth.
> > > > Since
> > > > the Earth is moving, the mirror D moves the extra distance DD' by the

> > > > time the light starting from A reaches it. =A0Since the Earth is

> > > > moving,
> > > > the partially silvered mirror at A moves the distance AA' when the

> > > > light originating from A reaches D'. =A0On the return path, the light

> > > > will travel backwards from D', towards the partially silvered mirror,
> > > > with the speed (c-v) and will meet the partially silvered mirror at

> > > > A''. =A0The partially silvered mirror will move the further distance

> > > > A'A" by the time it takes the returning beam of light to meet it.
> > > > Thus the formulation is exactly the same as it was in our case for
> > > > the

> > > > swimmer doing the parallel course. =A0Both going and coming times wil=
> l
> > > > be
> > > > exactly the same, that is t=3D3DL/c. =A0Totally independent of the ve=

> locity
> > > > of the source of light!
> > > > In the perpendicular direction, the speed will be square root of

> > > > (cc+vv). =A0Because of its initial speed v, the light will have to mo=

> ve
> > > > in on the moving mirror initially at C at an angle and with a higher
> > > > magnitude of velocity - just as any stone thrown out parallel to and

> > > > from a moving train, with respect to the ground. =A0It will reach it =
> at
> > > > the position C'. =A0This light will also have to travel the extra
> > > > distance (square root of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) - L). =A0As we have
> > > > seen, the time to cover this will be L/c=3D3Dt. =A0Again, this time i=

> s
> > > > totally independent of the velocity of the source of the light.

> > > > >From the above, it is clear that the return times are exactly the sa=
> me
> > > > no matter what the direction of the light source. =A0Thus, the rotati=

> on
> > > > of the whole apparatus - as was done - should not lead to any
> > > > change in results at all, relating to the interferometer pattern.
> > > > The

> > > > null result is entirely to be expected. =A0A wrong analogy had led to=
> a
> > > > wrong expectation. =A0But with the correct analogy, the right results

> > > > (the null results) were obtained.

> > > > The consequences are drastic. =A0The existence of ether as the medium

> > > > of
> > > > propagation of all electromagnetic waves (including light waves) is

> > > > upheld. =A0It had been wrongly demolished. =A0We also find that the s=
> peed
> > > > of light does change with the speed of the light emitting source. =A0=

> If
> > > > the speed of the light source is v, with respect to ether, then the
> > > > speed of light with respect to ether, when directed in the direction
> > > > of

> > > > v, is c+v. =A0The null results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer
> > > > experiment confirm both of the above. =A0The speed of light cannot be

> > > > constant, irrespective of the speed of the source.

> > > > To confirm this, let us now do the above analysis again. =A0This time=

> ,
> > > > following Einstein's Postulate (given below, and quoted from the text
> > > > book), we take c to be always c and never anything more or less.
> > > > Thus
> > > > on the parallel path, the time taken to cover the distance AD' will
> > > > be (L+vL/c)/c and D'A" will take (L-vL/c)/c which is 2L/c or 2t.
> > > > However, in the perpendicular path, the times will be square root of

> > > > (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c))/c. =A0That is, t*square root of (1+vv/cc) for t=

> he
> > > > going path and the same for the return path, giving 2*t*square root
> > > > of

> > > > (1 + vv/cc). =A0This is different from the parallel path, which is 2t=

> .
> > > > So, if the speed c of light is always constant, and independent of
> > > > the
> > > > speed of the light-emitting source, as per the current thinking, then
> > > > the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment would have shown the

> > > > fringes, with our corrected analysis! =A0 How ironic!

> > > > All the Einsteinian constructions resulting from the Michelson-Morley

> > > > interferometer experiments are thus reduced to glaring nonsense. =A0F=

> or
> > > > Einstein's first postulate, the basis behind all his theories of
> > > > relativity, namely,
> > > > ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELOCITY OF
> > > > LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE

> > > > as simply wrong. =A0Wrong. =A0Proved wrong, logically and mathematica=

> lly,
> > > > using the results of painstakingly done experiments.
> > > > To make my point, further, with mathematics, for the general case of
> > > > light proceeding at any angle (and not just the two angles, zero
> > > > degrees and ninety degrees) let us consider the light source going at

> > > > an angle (theta) with respect to the parallel path. =A0We use the sam=

> e
> > > > notations (L,v,t,c) as used earlier.
> > > > Then, the velocity of light will be in that direction:
> > > > Square root of ((c*cos(theta)+v)^2 + (c*sin(theta)^2), by breaking up
> > > > the speed c along two the x-y components, and adding the flow speed v

> > > > to the parallel component. =A0Note: the ^2 means squaring the bracket=
> ed
> > > > expression ahead of it. =A0After expansion, the above expression

> > > > becomes
> > > > square root of (c*c + v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta)).

> > > > Within time t, the float/mirror will have moved the distance vt =3D3D=
> vL/
> > > > c
> > > > along the parallel path. =A0The distance the swimmer/light will have =
> to
> > > > move is thus:
> > > > Square root of ((L*cos(theta)+v*L/c)^2 + (L*sin(theta)^2). =A0Which

> > > > after
> > > > expansion becomes (L/c)*square root of (c*c + v*v +2v*c*cos(theta)).
> > > > Dividing the distance traveled by the speed of travel, we get the
> > > > time
> > > > as L/c for the general case of light proceeding at any angle from the

> > > > source as being t=3D3DL/c, completely independent of the velocity of =
> v.
> > > > So what is really happening? =A0What are the so-called relativistic
> > > > effects of Einstein, really? =A0Really, what is happening (and this i=

> s
> > > > a
> > > > completely original thought, given right now) is that between any two
> > > > points on a body like Earth moving with a speed higher than zero with
> > > > respect to a fixed frame of reference; the actual distance traveled
> > > > by
> > > > a ray of light, from one point to the other, is usually different
> > > > from

> > > > the actual measured distance. =A0So, if we mark out two points on

> > > > Earth,
> > > > and measure the distance between them carefully, then, the ray of
> > > > light
> > > > will always move a distance more or less than the marked distance,

> > > > except for just one particular angle. =A0This angle can be found easi=

> ly
> > > > from the above formula for the actual length traveled, thus by
> > > > putting
> > > > the expression

> > > > v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta) =3D3D 0;
> > > > or theta =3D3D inverse of cos(-v/(2*c)).

> > > > Arindam Banerjee.
> > > > Melbourne, August 2005.

> > > > Author's Note: =A0This article can be freely distributed for discussi=
> on
> > > > strictly for non-commercial purposes only. =A0Comments are welcome.
> > > > The
> > > > author is solely responsible for this article. =A0All rights are

> > > > reserved.
> > >
> > > The very fact that someone sets a boundary -- in the
> > > present discussion the speed of light -- implies that
> > > there is something more on the other side of it. It
> > > follows that there are values for speed beyond the
> > > currently measured speed of light.
> > >

I note that you did not mention the term "refraction"
above, but congratulations on receiving that DHL package.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 16, 4:40 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article
> <16f04f83-47ab-4d0f-b0c0-0a49d6e57...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Yeah, it is a superb product, made in the USA! I am overjoyed, it is
so lovely! I will try to make it as cheap and available as possible.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
257a555d-72ec-4064...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

> > In article
> > <16f04f83-47ab-4d0f-b0c0-0a49d6e57...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <367c7b6f-43a9-4e87-b2e9-300cd752a...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >

> > > > > > On Jun 14, 11:39=3D3DA0pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

> > > > > > <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> On 6/13/2012 4:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>> Oops, I was wrong - I did see one nice Hindi movie after Agneepath:

> > > > > >>> Bud-dah hoga tera baap, starring the great guru AB. =3D3DA0Ther=
> e too,=3D
> > > =A0there

> > > > > >>> was einsteinian relativism for the old guy (no distinction between

> > > > > >>> good and bad, just love for his son) but the beta fortunately had old-
> > > > > >>> age absolute heroic values.
> > > > > >> Pretentious goddamn prick, first find out what relativism means,=
> bef=3D

> > > ore
> > > > > >> tacking on Einstein's name ahead of it.
> >
> > > > > > At your service, quotay.
> > > > > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> > > > > > time, sole god among lotsa devils.

> > > > > > Note: bin =3D3D3D trash, rubbish, discard, etc.

> >
> > > > > > Part of a 2005 article, copied from the main article below:
> >
> > > > > > Before I tackle the most fundamental issues relating to the

> > > > > > Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment - and yet again expose=
> the
> > > > > > bungle there, this time as clearly as possible - let me first, wi=

> th
> > > > > > sadness, reflect upon the horrendous consequences of this most
> > > > > > pernicious theory of relativity.
> > > > > > The deepest theories of physics are by no means complete in
> > > > > > themselves,

> > > > > > with some relevance to engineering; they have an intimate connect=
> ion
> > > > > > with individual and social life, by providing the practical basis=
> for
> > > > > > individual and group thought structures. =3DA0By outing the need =
> for an=3D
> > > y
> > > > > > absolute frame of reference, Einstein's relativity implicitly gav=
> e
> > > > > > the license to all forms of individual and social thinking as equ=
> ally
> > > > > > valid. =3DA0Thus, the thinking of the child molester or serial ki=
> ller i=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > valid - from the extension of Einstein's relativity to real life =
> - as
> > > > > > the thinking of the law enforcer or saint. =3DA0There is no basis=

> for
> > > > > > differentiation between virtue and vice, between appearance and

> > > > > > reality. =3DA0All are equally valid in the same relativist curren=

> cy.
> > > > > > What
> > > > > > is truth, or what is lie, becomes merely a matter of opinion
> > > > > > announced
> > > > > > and imposed by the loudest and the strongest of the time.
> > > > > > Thus I see the stupidities, indecencies, and the extraordinary

> > > > > > bloody-mindedness of the 20th century (a century of world wars, m=
> ass
> > > > > > murders, extreme human inequalities; now leading to another domin=

> ated
> > > > > > by selfishness, fear and greed) as an indirect yet inescapable

> > > > > > consequence of Einstein's theories, to some extent. =3DA0Men can =
> turn
> > > > > > into self-important brats more easily, as their subconscious can =
> now
> > > > > > find good excuse, from the supposedly undeniable basics of physic=
> s,
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > disregard absolute checks upon behaviour. =3DA0Einstein himself s=

> howed
> > > > > > this, when he felt no constraints about writing a letter to the
> > > > > > President of the USA urging the development of the atomic bomb;
> > > > > > knowing
> > > > > > fully well that its development would cause immense evil.

> > > > > > For in a relativistic mental set-up, there can be no high and def=
> ined
> > > > > > end to aspire unto; there can be no striving for the realization =
> of
> > > > > > absolute truths as fixed goals. =3DA0There is, thus, only the sco=
> pe of
> > > > > > degeneration of whatever remaining values that were handed down b=
> y
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > non-relativists of earlier generations. =3DA0This is painfully ev=

> ident
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > the moral atrophy and social degeneration in modern societies; as
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > from those failed communist regimes where the whims of dictators
> > > > > > became
> > > > > > the highest values for all.
> >
> > > > > > A 2005 posting (full article)
> >

> > > > > > If we humans are to wander among your stars, we must first throw =
> out
> > > > > > certain ridiculously wrong notions about physics. =3DA0The most s=
> tartli=3D
> > > ng
> > > > > > of such nonsense relates to the theories of relativity, which rea=
> red
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > about a hundred years ago. =3DA0One of the most outrageous conseq=

> uences
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > this theory, as put forward by its adherents, is that the general
> > > > > > public sincerely believes that travel is not possible beyond the
> > > > > > speed
> > > > > > of light; and it also believes that unlimited energy could be
> > > > > > obtained

> > > > > > from certain processing of seawater! =3DA0In the historical persp=
> ective=3D

> > > ,
> > > > > > this is rather like believing that the world is flat; and in the
> > > > > > basic

> > > > > > principle of alchemy, that is, base metals could be converted int=

> o
> > > > > > gold.
> > > > > > The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, with its famously

> > > > > > unexpected null results, is the sole source and also remains the =
> core
> > > > > > hard undeniable scientific evidence for the theories of relativit=
> y.
> > > > > > One of the outstanding features about this experiment is that it =
> is
> > > > > > simple in concept, and has been done with painstaking efforts by =
> many
> > > > > > scientists.
> > > > > > In this article, I will quote exhaustively from a textbook (detai=

> ls
> > > > > > below) about the nature and philosophical background behind this

> > > > > > experiment and will pinpoint the great blunder that was made in t=
> he
> > > > > > analysis of the null results. =3DA0I will show as clearly as can =
> be, th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > nature of this blunder. =3DA0I hope and believe that the intellig=

> ent
> > > > > > reader
> > > > > > will understand the subtlety underlying this very fine error, and
> > > > > > grasp
> > > > > > the enormous and highly positive consequences - with the
> > > > > > re-invigoration of physics from the most fundamental level.
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > > > Melbourne, July 2005.
> > > > > > Reference:
> > > > > > Textbook Details:
> > > > > > "Physics of the Atom", by M. Russell Wehr and James A. Richards,
> > > > > > Jr. of the Department of Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology.
> > > > > > Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
> > > > > > First Printed in 1964.

> > > > > > ______________________________=3D3DAC_________________________
> > > > > > "This book is neither a treatise nor a survey. =3DA0It is a textb=

> ook
> > > > > > which bridges the gap between classical physics and the present

> > > > > > frontiers of physical investigation." =3DA0- extract from the Pre=
> face, =3D
> > > by
> > > > > > the writers. =3DA0Philadelphia, Pa., July 1959.

> > > > > > Chapter 5 - Relativity (excerpts)
> > > > > > Pg111 ->

> > > > > > 5-1 =3DA0Consider the interpretations of physical events that mig=
> ht be
> > > > > > made
> > > > > > by a person of high IQ born and brought up on =3DA0a merry-go-rou=
> nd. =3D
> > > =3DA0He
> > > > > > would experience a force somewhat like the force of gravity. =3DA=
> 0It
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > be down at the centre of rotation, and, because of the centrifuga=
> l
> > > > > > component, it would be directed down and out at points away from =
> the
> > > > > > centre.
> > > > > > If our merry-go-round observer were to have the genius to devise =
> a
> > > > > > whole system of mechanics, the mechanics he would devise would no=

> t be
> > > > > > the mechanics of Newton.

> > > > > > For Newton's laws to be valid precisely, we must observe events f=
> rom
> > > > > > what is called an inertial frame of a Galilean-Newtonian co-ordin=
> ate
> > > > > > system. =3DA0Such a system is one which has no acceleration. =3DA=
> 0The who=3D
> > > le
> > > > > > structure of classical physics, then, is based on the assumption =
> that
> > > > > > we interpret all events as they would be interpreted by an observ=

> er
> > > > > > whose viewpoint is an inertial reference frame.

> > > > > > The genius of Newton is, in part, that although he never could st=
> ep
> > > > > > off
> > > > > > the earth physically, he did step off it mentally. =3DA0He interp=
> reted
> > > > > > events as though he had no acceleration. =3DA0Because of this shi=

> ft in
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > viewpoint, he was able to write his laws of mechanics in the
> > > > > > particularly simple form that he did.

> > > > > > But Newton never really knew where he projected himself to, and t=
> his
> > > > > > worried him. =3DA0He excluded the earth as a vantage point becaus=
> e the
> > > > > > earth not only rotates but revolves around the sun. =3DA0The sun =
> offere=3D

> > > d
> > > > > > possibilities, but even the sun moves and is probably accelerated

> > > > > > through space. =3DA0The stellar constellations were named by the =
> ancien=3D
> > > ts
> > > > > > and the stability of their arrangement led to their being called =
> the
> > > > > > "fixed" stars. =3DA0Yet it would be the strangest of co-incidence=

> s if
> > > > > > the "fixed" stars really were fixed.

> > > > > > It would seem that, however, that if we locate a frame of referen=
> ce
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > that it is fixed relative to the stars, this vantage point will b=

> e
> > > > > > sufficiently steady for Newton's laws to serve well for every

> > > > > > practical purpose. =3DA0Such a vantage point is good enough for t=
> he
> > > > > > practical men who want to fly aircraft, etc. But for a philosophe=
> r or
> > > > > > physicist whose primary concern is the understanding of the natur=
> e of
> > > > > > things and whose goal is the discovery of truth, uncertainty abou=

> t
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > frame of reference represented a serious flaw in the logical
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > of classical physics.

> > > > > > 5-2 =3DA0The search for something more fixed than the stars went
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > like this. =3DA0James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that electricity=
> and
> > > > > > light
> > > > > > are related phenomena. =3DA0Starting with known properties of ele=
> ctrici=3D
> > > ty
> > > > > > and magnetism, Maxwell derived equations which are identical in f=
> orm
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the equations which describe many wave phenomena. =3DA0He could

> > > > > > demonstrate, furthermore, that the velocity of the waves he
> > > > > > discovered

> > > > > > was the same as the velocity of light. =3DA0He could derive many =

> other
> > > > > > properties of light, and it was soon accepted that he had put the
> > > > > > wave

> > > > > > theory of light on a firm foundation. =3DA0In this theory, light =

> is an
> > > > > > electromagnetic wave motion.

> > > > > > Every wave motion has something that "waves". =3DA0 Surely, it wa=
> s
> > > > > > argued, light waves must involve the waving of something even in =
> free
> > > > > > space. =3DA0No one knew what it was, but it was given the name
> > > > > > "luminiferous ether".
> > > > > > Light passes through many kinds of materials. =3DA0It passes thro=

> ugh
> > > > > > relatively heavy materials like glass, and it passes through the
> > > > > > nearly

> > > > > > perfect vacuum that must lie between the stars and the earth. =3D=

> A0Thus
> > > > > > ether must permeate all of space.

> > > > > > However fanciful it may seem to us, physicists felt that this eth=
> er
> > > > > > might be just the thing to which to attach a Newtonian co-ordinat=
> e
> > > > > > system. =3DA0It was conceived that Newton's laws would hold exact=

> ly for
> > > > > > an observer moving without acceleration relative to the ether.

> > > > > > If the ether is assumed to be at rest, then the interesting quest=
> ion
> > > > > > is: How fast are we moving through the ether? =3DA0Since all spec=
> ulatio=3D

> > > ns
> > > > > > about the ether stem from its properties as a medium for carrying

> > > > > > light, an optical experiment is indicated. =3DA0It is not hard to=
> compu=3D

> > > te
> > > > > > how sensitive the apparatus must be to measure the ether drift.

> > > > > > Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the sun has no ether dri=

> ft,
> > > > > > the velocity of the earth through the ether must be its orbital

> > > > > > velocity. =3DA0If the sun has an ether drift, then the drift of t=
> he ear=3D

> > > th
> > > > > > will be even greater than its orbital velocity at some seasons.

> > > > > > Knowing that the earth's orbit is about 93 million miles, we can =
> find
> > > > > > the orbital velocity to be about 18.5 miles per second. =3DA0By
> > > > > > performing
> > > > > > the experiment at the best season of the year, we know that we sh=
> ould
> > > > > > be able to find an ether drift of at least 18.5 mi/sec. =3DA0The =
> veloci=3D
> > > ty
> > > > > > of light is 186,000 mi/sec. =3DA0Great as our orbital velocity is=
> , it i=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > only .0001 times the velocity of light; so it is evident that a v=

> ery
> > > > > > sensitive instrument is required.

> > > > > > 5-3 =3DA0A device of sufficient sensitivity was made and used in =
> the
> > > > > > United
> > > > > > States by Michelson and Morley in 1887. =3DA0The principle of the=

> ir
> > > > > > apparatus is brought out by the following analogy.

> > > > > > Suppose two equally fast swimmers undertake a race in a river bet=

> ween
> > > > > > floats anchored to the river bed.
> > > > > > (Arindam's note: please note the expression - "floats anchored to
> > > > > > the river bed" meaning that they are stuck to the ground, or the

> > > > > > inertial frame of reference. =3DA0Also let us mutter here, with G=
> alileo=3D

> > > ,
> > > > > > that the earth, it moves!)
> > > > > > _____________________River Bank______________________

> > > > > > =3DA0 C

> > > > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Same distance L l=
> ies between A and C,=3D
> > > =A0and A and D.
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Speed of swi=
> mmer with respect to t=3D
> > > he water is c.
> > > > > > =3DA0A =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA=
> 0 =3DA0 =3DA0D
> > > > > > ______________________River Bank_______________________
> > > > > > Two equal courses, each having a total length 2L, are laid out fr=
> om
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > starting point, float A. =3DA0One course is AD, parallel to the f=
> low of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > river relative to the earth, and the other AC, perpendicular to i=
> t.
> > > > > > How will the times compare if each of the swimmers goes out and b=
> ack
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > his course? =3DA0Let the speed of each swimmer relative to the wa=
> ter be
> > > > > > c,
> > > > > > and let the water drift or velocity with respect to the earth be =
> v.
> > > > > > When the swimmer on the parallel course goes downstream, his velo=
> city
> > > > > > will add to that of the water, giving him a resultant velocity of=
> (c
> > > > > > +v)
> > > > > > with respect to the earth. =3DA0The time required for him to swim=
> the
> > > > > > distance L from A to D is L/(c+v). =3DA0On his return, he must ov=
> ercome
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > water drift. =3DA0His net velocity then is (c-v), and his return =
> time i=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > L/(c-v). =3DA0His total time is the sum of these two times. This =
> is giv=3D
> > > en
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > Time_parallel =3D3D3D L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) =3D3D3D 2Lc/(cc - vv).
> > > > > > The other swimmer, going perpendicular to the water drift, spends=
> the
> > > > > > same time on each half of his trip, but he must head upstream if =
> he
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not to be carried away by the current. =3DA0The component of his =
> veloci=3D
> > > ty
> > > > > > that carries him toward his goal is the square root of (cc - vv) =
> with
> > > > > > respect to the earth. =3DA0The total time for his trip also depen=

> ds on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > water drift, and is

> > > > > > Time perpendicular =3D3D3D 2L/(square root of (cc - vv)).

> > > > > > To see how these two times compare, we divide the parallel course
> > > > > > time,
> > > > > > by the perpendicular course time, to get

> > > > > > Time parallel/Time perpendicular =3D3D3D 1/(square root of (1 - v=
> v/cc))
> > > > > > In still water v=3D3D3D0, the ratio of the times is unity, and th=
> e race=3D
> > > =A0is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > tie, as we would expect. =3DA0In slowly moving water, the ratio i=
> s
> > > > > > greater
> > > > > > than unity and the swimmer on the perpendicular course wins; or p=
> ut
> > > > > > differently, if the swimmers are stroking in phase when they leav=
> e
> > > > > > float A, they will be out of phase when they return to it. =3DA0I=
> f the
> > > > > > velocity of the river increases to nearly that of the swimmer, th=
> en
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > ratio tends towards infinity. =3DA0If the river velocity exceeds =
> the
> > > > > > swimmer velocity, the entire analysis breaks down. =3DA0The ratio=
> becom=3D
> > > es
> > > > > > imaginary and both swimmers are swept off the course by the curre=
> nt.
> > > > > > The point is that, by observing the race, the velocity of the wat=

> er
> > > > > > relative to the system of anchored floats can be measured.
> > > > > > The optical equivalent of the above situation is to have a race
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > two light rays over identical courses, one parallel and one

> > > > > > perpendicular to the ether drift. =3DA0The instrument used, is ca=

> lled a
> > > > > > Michelson interferometer, is shown schematically below.

> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0_C_ =3DA0 =
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3D
> > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0.
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0_B_
> > > > > > =3DA0 Light entry
> > > > > > _________A //_______________D
> >
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 ____observe=
> r (eye, telescope)
> > > > > > Light enters the apparatus from the source at the left. =3DA0At A=
> it
> > > > > > strikes a glass mirror (angled at 45 deg) which has a half-silver=
> ed
> > > > > > surface. =3DA0Half the light is reflected up toward B and C, whil=
> e the
> > > > > > other half refracts at both surfaces of A and emerges parallel to=
> the
> > > > > > original beam and goes on to D. =3DA0Both C and D are full-silver=
> ed,
> > > > > > front-surface mirrors which turn their beams back towards A. =3DA=

> 0The
> > > > > > beam
> > > > > > from C is partly reflected at A, but part of that beam refracts
> > > > > > through

> > > > > > A and goes to the observer. =3DA0The beam from D partially refrac=

> ts
> > > > > > through
> > > > > > A and is lost, but part of the beam is also reflected toward the

> > > > > > observer. =3DA0The plate of glass at B has the same thickness and
> > > > > > inclination as that at A, so that the two light paths from source=
> to
> > > > > > observer pass through the same number of glass thicknesses. =3DA0=
> If the
> > > > > > light from the slit did not diverge and remained very narrow in g=

> oing
> > > > > > through the apparatus, the observer would see a line of light. =

> =3DA0The
> > > > > > brightness of this line would depend on the difference in the opt=
> ical
> > > > > > length* of the two light paths. =3DA0(*Footnote: Two paths have t=
> he sam=3D

> > > e
> > > > > > optical length if light traverses both in the same time.
> > > > > > The optical lengths of the interferometer paths can be changed by

> > > > > > changing their physical length, by changing the index of refracti=

> on
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the region through which the light passes, or, if the swimming
> > > > > > analogy
> > > > > > applies, by moving the apparatus relative to the light-carrying

> > > > > > medium.) =3DA0If these (optical lengths) differed by any whole nu=
> mber o=3D
> > > f
> > > > > > wavelengths of the light (including zero) the line would be brigh=
> t.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > the path differed by an odd number of half-wavelengths, then the =
> line
> > > > > > would be dark. =3DA0Between these extremes every brightness grada=
> tion
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > be observed. =3DA0In practice, light does diverge in the apparatu=

> s, and
> > > > > > there are a great many slightly different paths being traversed

> > > > > > simultaneously. =3DA0Consequently the observer does not see but a
> > > > > > multiplicity of lines. =3DA0The loci of points where the paths di=
> ffer b=3D
> > > y
> > > > > > whole wavelengths are bright, and where the paths differ by an od=
> d
> > > > > > number of half-wavelengths there is darkness. =3DA0Thus, as one p=
> ath
> > > > > > length
> > > > > > is varied, the observer sees fringes, like the teeth of a comb, m=

> ove
> > > > > > across the field, rather than a single line becoming lighter and

> > > > > > darker. =3DA0It is fortunate that the optical system works as it =
> does,
> > > > > > since it is easier for the eye to detect differences in position =

> than
> > > > > > differences in intensity.
> > > > > > The precision of this device is remarkable. If yellow light from
> > > > > > Sodium

> > > > > > is used, the wavelength is 5.893*10**-7 m. =3DA0Moving the mirror=
> C awa=3D

> > > y
> > > > > > from A one-half this distance will increase one path length by a
> > > > > > whole
> > > > > > wavelength and cause the pattern to move an amount equal to the

> > > > > > separation of two adjacent dark lines. =3DA0If we can estimate to
> > > > > > hundredths of fringes, then the smallest detectable motion is onl=
> y
> > > > > > 2.9*10**-9m.
> > > > > > The similarity between the Michelson interferometer and the swimm=
> ing
> > > > > > race should be evident. =3DA0Light corresponds to the swimmers an=
> d has
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > free-space velocity, c, with respect to the ether medium. =3DA0Th=
> e ethe=3D
> > > r
> > > > > > drift corresponds to the water current drift and has the velocity=
> v
> > > > > > with respect to the earth. =3DA0Just as we could learn about the =
> river
> > > > > > flow
> > > > > > by seeing the outcome of the swimmers' race, so we wish to measur=

> e
> > > > > > the ether drift by conducting a "light race" over equal paths
> > > > > > parallel and perpendicular to the ether drift.
> > > > > > Suppose that instead of taking the ratio of the times for the two
> > > > > > paths
> > > > > > of the river race we now take their difference; then

> > > > > > t =3D3D3D time difference =3D3D3D 2Lc/(cc-vv) - 2L/square root of=
> (cc-vv) =3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > > > > Lvv/ccc after using the first two terms of the binomial expansion=

> , to
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > good approximation if v<<c.

> > > > > > In the interferometer, the time difference should appear as a fri=
> nge
> > > > > > shift from the position the fringes would have if there were NO e=
> ther
> > > > > > drift. =3DA0The distance light moves in a time t is d=3D3D3Dct an=
> d if thi=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > distance represents n waves of wavelength W, then d=3D3D3DnW. =3D=
> A0Theref=3D
> > > ore
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > fringe shift would be n=3D3D3DLvv/(Wcc)

> > > > > > Thus if the light race is carried out with speed of light c and

> > > > > > wavelength W in an interferometer whose arms are of length L, one=
> of
> > > > > > which is parallel to the ether drift of velocity v, then the equa=
> tion
> > > > > > n=3D3D3DLvv/(Wcc) gives the number of fringes that should be disp=
> laced
> > > > > > because of the motion of the earthe through the ether compared wi=

> th
> > > > > > their positions if the earth were AT REST in the ether.

> > > > > > 5-4 The Michelson-Morley Experiment. =3DA0The apparatus used was =

> large
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > had its effective arm length increased to about 10 m by using

> > > > > > additional mirrors to fold up the path. =3DA0The entire apparatus=

> was
> > > > > > floated on mercury so that it could be rotated at constant speed
> > > > > > without introducing strains that would deform the apparatus.
> > > > > > ROTATION
> > > > > > WAS NECESSARY in order to make the fringes shift, and by rotating
> > > > > > through 90deg, first one arm and then the other could be made
> > > > > > parallel

> > > > > > to the drift, thereby doubling the fringe displacement given in t=
> he
> > > > > > earlier equation. =3DA0We can now estimate whether this instrumen=
> t shou=3D
> > > ld
> > > > > > be sensitive enough to detect the ether drift. =3DA0Recall that a=
> t some
> > > > > > time of the year the ether drift v was expected to be at least th=
> e
> > > > > > orbital velocity of the earth, which is about .0001c. =3DA0Thus w=
> e expe=3D
> > > ct
> > > > > > vv/cc to be at least 10**-8. =3DA0Using light of wavelength 5*10*=
> *-7 m,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > computed shift is n=3D3D3D0.4 fringe. =3DA0Michelson and Morley e=
> stimated=3D
> > > =A0that
> > > > > > they could detect a shift of 0.01 fringe. =3DA0Sensitivity to spa=
> re!
> > > > > > Measurements were made over an extended period of time at all sea=
> sons
> > > > > > of the year, but no significant fringe shift was observed. =3DA0T=
> hinkin=3D

> > > g
> > > > > > that the earth might drag a little either along with it just as a
> > > > > > boat

> > > > > > carries a thin layer of water when it glides, Michelson and Morle=

> y
> > > > > > took
> > > > > > the entire apparatus to a mountain laboratory in search of a site
> > > > > > which

> > > > > > would project into the drifting ether. =3DA0Again a diligent sear=
> ch
> > > > > > failed
> > > > > > to measure an ether drift. =3DA0The experiment "failed".

> > > > > > Few experimental failures have been more stimulating than this. =

> =3DA0Th=3D

> > > e
> > > > > > negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment presented a

> > > > > > challenge to explain its failure. =3DA0Fitzgerald and Lorentz pre=
> sented
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > ad hoc explanation. =3DA0They pointed out that there might be an
> > > > > > interaction between the ether and objects moving relative to it, =
> such
> > > > > > that the object became shorter in all its dimensions parallel to =
> the
> > > > > > relative velocity. =3DA0Recall that in the flowing water analogy =

> the
> > > > > > ratio
> > > > > > of the times of the swimmers was
> > > > > > 1/square-root of (1-vv/cc).

> > > > > > If the route parallel to the flow had been shorter by this factor=
> ,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > the ratio of the times would have been one and the race would hav=
> e
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > a tie. A similar shortening of the parallel interferometer arm wo=

> uld
> > > > > > account for the tie race Michelson and Morley always observed. =

> =3DA0The
> > > > > > shortening could never be measured because any rule used to measu=
> re
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > would also be moving relative to the ether and would shorten also=
> .
> > > > > > Whether you accept the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis =
> or
> > > > > > not, the Michelson-Morley experiment indicates that all observers=
> who
> > > > > > measure the velocity of light will get the same result regardless=

> of
> > > > > > their own velocity through space.

> > > > > > 5-5 The constant velocity of light. =3DA0Michelson and Morley fou=
> nd tha=3D
> > > t
> > > > > > the speed of the earth through space made no difference in the sp=
> eed
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > light relative to them. =3DA0The inference is clear: either that =
> the
> > > > > > earth
> > > > > > moves in some way through ether space more slowly than it moves a=
> bout
> > > > > > the sun, or that ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THAT THEIR MOTION THROUG=

> H
> > > > > > SPACE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THEM.
> > > > > > The above inference was clear, at least to Einstein, who took the

> > > > > > second alternative and made it a cornerstone of his special theor=

> y of
> > > > > > relativity.
> > > > > > Recall that the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out to
> > > > > > measure

> > > > > > the speed of the earth relative to the ether in order to establis=

> h a
> > > > > > frame of reference relative to which Newton's laws would hold. =

> =3DA0The

> > > > > > failure of that experiment meant that the search for the fixed
> > > > > > reference system must be made by another technique or abandoned

> > > > > > altogether. =3DA0Einstein explored the alternative of abandonment=
> . =3DA0H=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > asked himself where he would stand (both literally and figurative=
> ly)
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > there were no "Newtonian" frame of reference. =3DA0In this case t=
> here
> > > > > > could be no absolute velocities, for every velocity would have to=

> be
> > > > > > measured relative to an origin that might and probably would be
> > > > > > moving.

> > > > > > =3DA0Since there can be no preferred frame of reference, any fram=
> e must
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > as good as any other. =3DA0To be universal, the laws of physics m=

> ust be
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > same for all observers regardless of any motion they may have.
> > > > > > Contrary to the first paragraphs of this chapter, one's viewpoint

> > > > > > MUST MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in one's interpretation of events observe=
> d.
> > > > > > If he is to be correct, the man born and brought up on a merry-go=

> -
> > > > > > round
> > > > > > must deduce the same laws of physics as anyone else.

> > > > > > **** End of exhaustive quotations from the textbook "Physics of t=
> he
> > > > > > Atom", from 5-1 to 5-5. =3DA0The following sections, in brief, ar=
> e abou=3D

> > > t:
> > > > > > 5-6 General and Special theories of relativity.
> > > > > > 5-7 Classical Relativity

> > > > > > 5-8 Einsteinian Relativity. =3DA0Quote: p123 The Michelson-Morley

> > > > > > experiment was based on the assumption that since the classical

> > > > > > velocity transformation is not invariant, it should be possible t=

> o
> > > > > > measure the velocity of light in the ether relative to the earth.
> > > > > > The

> > > > > > experiment demonstrated that at least one velocity is invariant -=
> the
> > > > > > velocity of light. =3DA0Einstein accepted this as a second fundam=
> ental
> > > > > > assumption of this special theory of relativity. =3DA0He postulat=
> ed tha=3D
> > > t:
> > > > > > (2) ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELO=

> CITY
> > > > > > OF LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE.
> > > > > > 5-9 Relativistic space-time transformation equations.
> > > > > > 5-10 The relativistic velocity transformation
> > > > > > 5-11 Relativistic mass transformation
> > > > > > 5-12 Relativistic mass-energy equivalence
> > > > > > 5-13 The upper limit of velocity
> > > > > > 5-14 Examples of relativistic calculations
> > > > > > 5-15 Pair production

> > > > > > 5-16 Summary. =3DA0We have seen how Einstein's attention to a fla=
> w in
> > > > > > logic in Newtonian mechanics led him to consider the importance o=
> f an
> > > > > > observer's viewpoint. =3DA0We have seen how the "failure" of the

> > > > > > Michelson-Morley experiment led Einstein to assign special
> > > > > > significance

> > > > > > to the velocity of light in free space. =3DA0We have seen how the=
> se
> > > > > > considerations led to new concepts of space, time, mass, energy, =
> and
> > > > > > matter. =3DA0When we realize that this was but one of Einstein's
> > > > > > achievements, we begin to sense the magnitude of his contribution=

> to
> > > > > > human thought.
> > > > > > (End of quotes from the book "Physics of the Atom".)
> > > > > > Before I tackle the most fundamental issues relating to the

> > > > > > Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment - and yet again expose=
> the
> > > > > > bungle there, this time as clearly as possible - let me first, wi=

> th
> > > > > > sadness, reflect upon the horrendous consequences of this most
> > > > > > pernicious theory of relativity.
> > > > > > The deepest theories of physics are by no means complete in
> > > > > > themselves,

> > > > > > with some relevance to engineering; they have an intimate connect=
> ion
> > > > > > with individual and social life, by providing the practical basis=
> for
> > > > > > individual and group thought structures. =3DA0By outing the need =
> for an=3D
> > > y
> > > > > > absolute frame of reference, Einstein's relativity implicitly gav=
> e
> > > > > > the license to all forms of individual and social thinking as equ=
> ally
> > > > > > valid. =3DA0Thus, the thinking of the child molester or serial ki=
> ller i=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > valid - from the extension of Einstein's relativity to real life =
> - as
> > > > > > the thinking of the law enforcer or saint. =3DA0There is no basis=

> for
> > > > > > differentiation between virtue and vice, between appearance and

> > > > > > reality. =3DA0All are equally valid in the same relativist curren=

> cy.
> > > > > > What
> > > > > > is truth, or what is lie, becomes merely a matter of opinion
> > > > > > announced
> > > > > > and imposed by the loudest and the strongest of the time.
> > > > > > Thus I see the stupidities, indecencies, and the extraordinary

> > > > > > bloody-mindedness of the 20th century (a century of world wars, m=
> ass
> > > > > > murders, extreme human inequalities; now leading to another domin=

> ated
> > > > > > by selfishness, fear and greed) as an indirect yet inescapable

> > > > > > consequence of Einstein's theories, to some extent. =3DA0Men can =
> turn
> > > > > > into self-important brats more easily, as their subconscious can =
> now
> > > > > > find good excuse, from the supposedly undeniable basics of physic=
> s,
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > disregard absolute checks upon behaviour. =3DA0Einstein himself s=

> howed
> > > > > > this, when he felt no constraints about writing a letter to the
> > > > > > President of the USA urging the development of the atomic bomb;
> > > > > > knowing
> > > > > > fully well that its development would cause immense evil.

> > > > > > For in a relativistic mental set-up, there can be no high and def=
> ined
> > > > > > end to aspire unto; there can be no striving for the realization =
> of
> > > > > > absolute truths as fixed goals. =3DA0There is, thus, only the sco=
> pe of
> > > > > > degeneration of whatever remaining values that were handed down b=
> y
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > non-relativists of earlier generations. =3DA0This is painfully ev=

> ident
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > the moral atrophy and social degeneration in modern societies; as
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > from those failed communist regimes where the whims of dictators
> > > > > > became
> > > > > > the highest values for all.

> > > > > > ______________________________=3D3DAC_______________________
> > > > > > It is evident from the above (extracts from the paras 5.1 to 5.5 =
> of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > textbook "Physics of the atom) that the entire basis of Einstein'=
> s
> > > > > > theory of relativity depends upon the null result of the Michelso=
> n
> > > > > > -Morley interferometer experiment. =3DA0This single fact is of vi=
> tal
> > > > > > importance. =3DA0Equally important is that analogy given earlier,

> > > > > > relating
> > > > > > to the swimmer; swimming parallel to, and perpendicular to, the
> > > > > > flowing

> > > > > > river. =3DA0For based upon this analogy, and this analogy alone, =
> was th=3D

> > > e
> > > > > > logic and also the mathematics for the analysis of the Michelson-
> > > > > > Morley
> > > > > > interferometer experiment developed.

> > > > > > Let us see how far this analogy relates to the dynamics of light =
> on
> > > > > > this our moving earth. =3DA0The diagram is redrawn below:
> > > > > > _____________________River Bank______________________
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0=
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 C

> > > > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Same distance L lies between A and C, and betwe=
> en A and D=3D
> > > .
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Speed of swimmer with r=
> espect to the wate=3D
> > > r is c.
> >
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 River Bank____ A________=3D3DAC__________=
> ___D
> > > > > > We must note here, once again, that in this analogy A, C and D ar=
> e
> > > > > > fixed floats on the river bed. =3DA0So, while the swimmer himself=

> is
> > > > > > affected by the flow of water, which gives him a higher or lower
> > > > > > speed
> > > > > > depending upon his direction, the floats are not affected at all.
> > > > > > They

> > > > > > are stuck to the river bed, and thus, have the same fixedness as =

> the
> > > > > > river bank.
> > > > > > If this analogy (with respect to the motion of earth in ether) is

> > > > > > correct, then the subsequent mathematics (that gives us the famou=
> s
> > > > > > Lorentz transformation) is correct. =3DA0But is this analogy corr=
> ect?
> > > > > > For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed=
> v
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. =3DA0=
> Any
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the ri=
> ver.
> > > > > > When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to drift) i=

> t is
> > > > > > implicitly given a velocity of -v, so that its net velocity with

> > > > > > respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=3D3D3D0.
> > > > > > This implicit, totally arbitrary giving of a negative velocity to=
> the
> > > > > > float, equal to the velocity of the river flow, making it thus fi=

> xed
> > > > > > with respect to the river bank, was completely missed by all the

> > > > > > physicists, past and present. =3DA0However, it is an absolute and

> > > > > > undeniable fact that all the stationary objects on Earth have the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > velocity v around the Sun, since the Earth is moving with that

> > > > > > tangential speed around the Sun, according to Galileo and all lat=
> er
> > > > > > non-Aristotelian astronomers. =3DA0There is no way it is possible=
> to gi=3D
> > > ve
> > > > > > any object on earth a negative velocity through some external eth=
> er
> > > > > > hook-up process! =3DA0All objects on Earth move at the same speed=
> v. =3D
> > > =3DA0So
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > do not see objects from Earth being left behind, as it were, as w=
> e
> > > > > > orbit the Sun! =3DA0There is no way we can go to and from goal po=
> sts
> > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > in the ether reference! =3DA0Nor can light travel to and from goa=
> l post=3D

> > > s
> > > > > > fixed in the ether reference!
> > > > > > However, by fixing the floats on the river bed (which is the same
> > > > > > reference as the river bank) all the physicists have implicitly
> > > > > > assumed

> > > > > > all the above. =3DA0They have kept the floats fixed in the ether
> > > > > > reference,
> > > > > > while implicitly holding they are in the Earthly reference. =3DA0=
> This
> > > > > > implies that the Earth is not moving at all! =3DA0For if the Eart=
> h is
> > > > > > moving, there could be no question of keeping the floats fixed to=
> the
> > > > > > river bed, for any valid analogy. =3DA0They would have to drift w=
> ith th=3D

> > > e
> > > > > > velocity v with respect to the river bank.

> > > > > > So the terrible mistake in this analogy was to keep the floats fi=
> xed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the river bed/ether, as opposed to letting it drift with the flow=
> .
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > importance of this point simply cannot be overstated. =3DA0When e=
> xtende=3D
> > > d
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the Michelson-Morley experimental set-up, this means - absolutely=

> ! -
> > > > > > that all the mirrors stay fixed in etheric space while the earth
> > > > > > moves

> > > > > > away from them with velocity v! =3DA0 Ridiculous! =3DA0But this i=
> s exactl=3D

> > > y
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > must happen when we extend the analogy of the swimmers, with the
> > > > > > floats

> > > > > > drifting but fixed to the river bed, to the apparatus in the so-v=

> ital
> > > > > > Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment.
> > > > > > Bodies, and light, can, have to, and do travel to and from "goal

> > > > > > posts" fixed in the moving Earthly reference! =3DA0There is simpl=
> y no w=3D
> > > ay
> > > > > > in which the mirrors used in the Michelson-Morley experiment can =
> be
> > > > > > assumed to remain fixed in etheric space, while the Earth moves a=
> way
> > > > > > from the set-up! =3DA0If we admit this, then we must allow that t=
> he
> > > > > > swimming analogy was flawed. =3DA0The correct analogy would be to=
> cut t=3D

> > > he
> > > > > > floats loose, and let them drift with the velocity v.
> > > > > > Now let us see the consequences of this change.
> > > > > > _____________________River Bank______________________

> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0=
> C =3DA0C'

> > > > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Same distance L lies between A and C, and=
> between A a=3D
> > > nd D.
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Speed of swimmer with r=
> espect to the wate=3D
> > > r is c.
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0=
> A =3DA0A' =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3D
> > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0D =3DA0D'
> > > > > > ______________________River Bank_______________________
> > > > > > The figure above shows the change of position of the float with t=

> ime.
> > > > > > As earlier there are two equal lengths L, marked out by the

> > > > > > perpendicular course AC and the parallel course AD. =3DA0(L=3D3D3=
> DAC=3D3D3D=3D
> > > AD). =3DA0But
> > > > > > now the floats are *not* fixed to the river bed, so they drift wi=
> th
> > > > > > velocity v. =3DA0After time t, which is L/c, they move to the poi=
> nts A'=3D

> > > ,
> > > > > > C' and D'.

> > > > > > t=3D3D3DL/c is the time the swimmer would have swum the lengths L=
> in th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > absence of flow, that is, with v=3D3D3D0.

> > > > > > So AA', DD' and CC' are all of length vt or vL/c.

> > > > > > Let us take the swimmer taking the route AD, parallel to the rive=
> r
> > > > > > bank. =3DA0He starts from A, towards D. =3DA0He has the speed (c+=
> v) as he=3D
> > > =A0is
> > > > > > swimming with the flow. =3DA0Since the target float D is moving, =
> the
> > > > > > swimmer now has to travel a further distance DD' to catch up. =3D=
> A0So, =3D
> > > he
> > > > > > has actually swum the distance AD' instead of the earlier AD. =3D=
> A0AD'
> > > > > > =3D3D3D AD+DD'.
> > > > > > So he has swum the length L+vL/c, with the speed c+v. =3DA0The ti=

> me it
> > > > > > would take him to do that will be (L+vL/c)/(c+v).

> > > > > > Now (L+vL/c)/(c+v) =3D3D3D L(1+v/c)/(c+v) =3D3D3DL(1+v/c)/(c(1+v/=
> c)) =3D3D3=3D
> > > D L/c =3D3D3D t.
> > > > > > Which means, no matter what the speed of the river, the swimmer w=
> ould
> > > > > > reach his goal float in the same time, provided the float was *no=

> t*
> > > > > > tethered, freely drifting instead.

> > > > > > Now let us consider the route AC, that is the one perpendicular t=
> o
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > river bank. =3DA0The swimmer swims with velocity c in the perpend=
> icular
> > > > > > direction, but is pushed sideways as a result of the flow. =3DA0H=
> e has =3D
> > > an
> > > > > > additional component of velocity thus, which pushes him sideways =
> to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > float which also has moved by the distance CC' in the time t. =3D=
> A0The
> > > > > > magnitude of the velocity of the swimmer, on his way to C' has to=

> be
> > > > > > square root of (cc+vv).

> > > > > > The distance he covers is square root of (L*L + vt*vt) or square =
> root
> > > > > > of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) or (L/c)*square root of (cc+vv). =3DA0So=

> the
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > taken to cover this distance will be distance/speed or L/c*square
> > > > > > root
> > > > > > of (cc+vv)/square root of (cc+vv) which is L/c which again is t.
> > > > > > So no matter whether the swimmer is swimming with the current or

> > > > > > perpendicular to the current - if the floats are drifting, he wil=
> l
> > > > > > always cover the distances involved in exactly the same time as i=

> f
> > > > > > there was no flow in the water.

> > > > > > For the sake of completion, we now consider the return journeys i=

> n
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > the parallel and perpendicular directions.
> > > > > > _____________________River Bank______________________

> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0C =3DA0C' C''

> > > > > > Speed of river -> v

> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Same distance L lies between A and C, and =
> between A an=3D
> > > d D.
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Speed of swimmer with respect to the=
> water is c.
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0A =3DA0A' =3DA0A'' =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0=
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0=3D
> > > =A0=3DA0 D =3DA0D' D''

> > > > > > ______________________River Bank_______________________
> > > > > > Over the time 2t, the floats will have moved the distances AA'',

> > > > > > DD'' and CC''. =3DA0The swimmer on the parallel path, having
> > > > > > reached the float at D, turns back towards the float and will mee=
> t it
> > > > > > at the point A''. =3DA0The distance he now covers is D'A" which i=
> s
> > > > > > A'D'-A'A" or L-vt or L-vL/c or L(1-v/c). =3DA0The speed of the
> > > > > > swimmer is (c-v) as he is going against the flow. =3DA0So the tim=
> e take=3D
> > > n
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > the swimmer to reach the float on the return journey is L(1-v/c)/=
> (c-
> > > > > > v)
> > > > > > or L(1-v/c)/(c(1-v/c)) =3D3D3D L/c =3D3D3D t.

> > > > > > In the perpendicular path, the swimmer covers the distance C'A''.

> > > > > > =3DA0Using the earlier analysis, we can once again find that the =
> time i=3D
> > > t
> > > > > > would take him to cover this distance would be t. =3DA0(His speed=

> would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > the same as that going from A to C'; and the distance C'A'' is
> > > > > > also the same as AC'.)

> > > > > > We thus see that no matter what angle the direction of travel, th=
> e
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > for travel for a source between two points in a medium which has =
> no
> > > > > > matter what velocity with respect to some fixed reference, is alw=
> ays
> > > > > > the same. =3DA0This goes totally against all modern physics, whic=
> h is
> > > > > > relativistic, and based upon the Lorentz transformation dealt wit=

> h
> > > > > > earlier.
> > > > > > We now see what really happened in the Michelson-Morley
> > > > > > interferometer

> > > > > > experiment. =3DA0The diagram is given again below, with some chan=
> ges
> > > > > > following our earlier discussion.
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0=
> =3DA0 C__C'
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0=
> =3DA0 ____ B
> > > > > > =3DA0 Light entry =3DA0 =3DA0 A =3DA0A' A''
> > > > > > ___________ =3DA0 =3DA0 // =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3D
> > > =3DA0 =3DA0 |D =3DA0D'
> >
> > > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 ______ obse=
> rver (telescope, film)
> > > > > > Light going through A will be reflected by the mirror not at posi=
> tion
> > > > > > D
> > > > > > but at a further distance, at D'. =3DA0The light will thus travel=

> the
> > > > > > path AD' with the speed (c+v) which is the path AD+DD'; DD' being

> > > > > > the extra distance it will have to move, because the Earth is mov=

> ing,
> > > > > > and the mirror along with everything else is fixed on the Earth.
> > > > > > Since

> > > > > > the Earth is moving, the mirror D moves the extra distance DD' by=
> the
> > > > > > time the light starting from A reaches it. =3DA0Since the Earth i=
> s
> > > > > > moving,
> > > > > > the partially silvered mirror at A moves the distance AA' when th=
> e
> > > > > > light originating from A reaches D'. =3DA0On the return path, the=
> light
> > > > > > will travel backwards from D', towards the partially silvered mir=
> ror,
> > > > > > with the speed (c-v) and will meet the partially silvered mirror =
> at
> > > > > > A''. =3DA0The partially silvered mirror will move the further dis=

> tance
> > > > > > A'A" by the time it takes the returning beam of light to meet it.

> > > > > > Thus the formulation is exactly the same as it was in our case fo=
> r
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > swimmer doing the parallel course. =3DA0Both going and coming tim=
> es wil=3D
> > > l
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > exactly the same, that is t=3D3D3DL/c. =3DA0Totally independent o=
> f the ve=3D

> > > locity
> > > > > > of the source of light!
> > > > > > In the perpendicular direction, the speed will be square root of

> > > > > > (cc+vv). =3DA0Because of its initial speed v, the light will have=
> to mo=3D
> > > ve
> > > > > > in on the moving mirror initially at C at an angle and with a hig=
> her
> > > > > > magnitude of velocity - just as any stone thrown out parallel to =
> and
> > > > > > from a moving train, with respect to the ground. =3DA0It will rea=
> ch it =3D
> > > at
> > > > > > the position C'. =3DA0This light will also have to travel the ext=
> ra
> > > > > > distance (square root of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) - L). =3DA0As we h=
> ave
> > > > > > seen, the time to cover this will be L/c=3D3D3Dt. =3DA0Again, thi=
> s time i=3D

> > > s
> > > > > > totally independent of the velocity of the source of the light.

> > > > > > >From the above, it is clear that the return times are exactly th=
> e sa=3D
> > > me
> > > > > > no matter what the direction of the light source. =3DA0Thus, the =
> rotati=3D

> > > on
> > > > > > of the whole apparatus - as was done - should not lead to any
> > > > > > change in results at all, relating to the interferometer pattern.
> > > > > > The

> > > > > > null result is entirely to be expected. =3DA0A wrong analogy had =
> led to=3D
> > > =A0a
> > > > > > wrong expectation. =3DA0But with the correct analogy, the right r=

> esults
> > > > > > (the null results) were obtained.

> > > > > > The consequences are drastic. =3DA0The existence of ether as the =
> medium
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > propagation of all electromagnetic waves (including light waves) =
> is
> > > > > > upheld. =3DA0It had been wrongly demolished. =3DA0We also find th=
> at the s=3D

> > > peed
> > > > > > of light does change with the speed of the light emitting source.=

> =3DA0=3D
> > > If
> > > > > > the speed of the light source is v, with respect to ether, then t=
> he
> > > > > > speed of light with respect to ether, when directed in the direct=
> ion
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > v, is c+v. =3DA0The null results of the Michelson-Morley interfer=
> ometer
> > > > > > experiment confirm both of the above. =3DA0The speed of light can=

> not be
> > > > > > constant, irrespective of the speed of the source.

> > > > > > To confirm this, let us now do the above analysis again. =3DA0Thi=
> s time=3D
> > > ,
> > > > > > following Einstein's Postulate (given below, and quoted from the =

> text
> > > > > > book), we take c to be always c and never anything more or less.
> > > > > > Thus

> > > > > > on the parallel path, the time taken to cover the distance AD' wi=

> ll
> > > > > > be (L+vL/c)/c and D'A" will take (L-vL/c)/c which is 2L/c or 2t.

> > > > > > However, in the perpendicular path, the times will be square root=
> of
> > > > > > (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c))/c. =3DA0That is, t*square root of (1+vv/cc)=
> for t=3D
> > > he
> > > > > > going path and the same for the return path, giving 2*t*square ro=
> ot
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > (1 + vv/cc). =3DA0This is different from the parallel path, which=
> is 2t=3D
> > > .
> > > > > > So, if the speed c of light is always constant, and independent o=
> f
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > speed of the light-emitting source, as per the current thinking, =
> then
> > > > > > the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment would have shown t=
> he
> > > > > > fringes, with our corrected analysis! =3DA0 How ironic!
> > > > > > All the Einsteinian constructions resulting from the Michelson-Mo=

> rley
> > > > > > interferometer experiments are thus reduced to glaring nonsense. =

> =3DA0F=3D

> > > or
> > > > > > Einstein's first postulate, the basis behind all his theories of
> > > > > > relativity, namely,

> > > > > > ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELOCITY=

> OF
> > > > > > LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE

> > > > > > as simply wrong. =3DA0Wrong. =3DA0Proved wrong, logically and mat=
> hematica=3D

> > > lly,
> > > > > > using the results of painstakingly done experiments.

> > > > > > To make my point, further, with mathematics, for the general case=

> of
> > > > > > light proceeding at any angle (and not just the two angles, zero

> > > > > > degrees and ninety degrees) let us consider the light source goin=
> g at
> > > > > > an angle (theta) with respect to the parallel path. =3DA0We use t=
> he sam=3D

> > > e
> > > > > > notations (L,v,t,c) as used earlier.
> > > > > > Then, the velocity of light will be in that direction:

> > > > > > Square root of ((c*cos(theta)+v)^2 + (c*sin(theta)^2), by breakin=
> g up
> > > > > > the speed c along two the x-y components, and adding the flow spe=
> ed v
> > > > > > to the parallel component. =3DA0Note: the ^2 means squaring the b=
> racket=3D
> > > ed
> > > > > > expression ahead of it. =3DA0After expansion, the above expressio=

> n
> > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > square root of (c*c + v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta)).
> > > > > > Within time t, the float/mirror will have moved the distance vt =

> =3D3D3D=3D
> > > =A0vL/
> > > > > > c
> > > > > > along the parallel path. =3DA0The distance the swimmer/light will=
> have =3D
> > > to
> > > > > > move is thus:
> > > > > > Square root of ((L*cos(theta)+v*L/c)^2 + (L*sin(theta)^2). =3DA0W=
> hich
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > expansion becomes (L/c)*square root of (c*c + v*v +2v*c*cos(theta=

> )).
> > > > > > Dividing the distance traveled by the speed of travel, we get the
> > > > > > time

> > > > > > as L/c for the general case of light proceeding at any angle from=
> the
> > > > > > source as being t=3D3D3DL/c, completely independent of the veloci=
> ty of =3D
> > > v.
> > > > > > So what is really happening? =3DA0What are the so-called relativi=
> stic
> > > > > > effects of Einstein, really? =3DA0Really, what is happening (and =
> this i=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > completely original thought, given right now) is that between any=
> two
> > > > > > points on a body like Earth moving with a speed higher than zero =
> with
> > > > > > respect to a fixed frame of reference; the actual distance travel=

> ed
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > a ray of light, from one point to the other, is usually different
> > > > > > from

> > > > > > the actual measured distance. =3DA0So, if we mark out two points =

> on
> > > > > > Earth,
> > > > > > and measure the distance between them carefully, then, the ray of
> > > > > > light

> > > > > > will always move a distance more or less than the marked distance=
> ,
> > > > > > except for just one particular angle. =3DA0This angle can be foun=
> d easi=3D

> > > ly
> > > > > > from the above formula for the actual length traveled, thus by
> > > > > > putting
> > > > > > the expression

> > > > > > v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta) =3D3D3D 0;
> > > > > > or theta =3D3D3D inverse of cos(-v/(2*c)).

> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee.
> > > > > > Melbourne, August 2005.

> > > > > > Author's Note: =3DA0This article can be freely distributed for di=
> scussi=3D
> > > on
> > > > > > strictly for non-commercial purposes only. =3DA0Comments are welc=
> ome.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > author is solely responsible for this article. =3DA0All rights ar=

> e
> > > > > > reserved.
> >
> > > > > The very fact that someone sets a boundary -- in the
> > > > > present discussion the speed of light -- implies that
> > > > > there is something more on the other side of it. It
> > > > > follows that there are values for speed beyond the
> > > > > currently measured speed of light.
> >
> > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > Om Shanti
> >
> > > Light is essentially a sequence of very brief travelling
> > > electromagnetic waves caused by perturbed atoms, that propagate
> > > through aether till the amplitude becomes submerged in the background

> > > noise. =A0The speed of light is actually the speed of this wave motion.

> > > In dieletric such as glass, the speed of light is less than what it is

> > > in free space (vacuum). =A0(This is the reason why a stick dipped in
> > > water appears bent.) =A0Einsteinians,please note that the stick does no=

> t
> > > actually bend when it is dipped into water, it only appears to bend.
> > > So, appearances do not account for everything.
> >
> > > One may surmise the existence of other phenomena other than
> > > electromagnetic waves, that we have not managed to find out so far.
> > > For this, a good science fiction writer is required - to set
> > > investigation along certain lines.
> >
> > > For instance, one may posit the future existence of elements with

> > > atomic number say exceeding 130 or 200. =A0These could well be stable.

> > > Tools made with such elements may have extraordinary properties. If we
> > > existed in space, and researched there, we may be able to create such
> > > elements one day, that so far have not come across our scope.
> > > Extraordinary effects may come from those elements, we can only
> > > imagine them!
> >
> > > Maybe I will write about these things one day, today I am very glad
> > > that the first physical proof of my book has arrived courtesy DHL.
>
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee.
> >
> > I note that you did not mention the term "refraction"
> > above, but congratulations on receiving that DHL package.
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> Yeah, it is a superb product, made in the USA! I am overjoyed, it is
> so lovely! I will try to make it as cheap and available as possible.

A travel author I know here gets books printed in
Singapore. They come out real nice.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Humanity escapes the solar system: Voyager 1 signals that
it has reached the edge of interstellar space - 11
billion miles away

By Eddie Wrenn
Thursday, June 14, 2012

With absolutely no attempt at hyperbole at all, it is
fair to say that this is one of - if not the - biggest
achievement of the human race.

For, as we speak, an object conceived in the human mind,
and built by our tools, and launched from our planet, is
sailing out of the further depths of our solar system -
and will be the first object made by man to sail out into
interstellar space.

The Voyager 1, built by Nasa and launched in 1977 has
spent the last 35 years steadily increasing its distance
from Earth, and is now now 17,970,000,000km - or
11,100,000,000miles - away, travelling at 10km a second.

Indications over the last week implies that Voyager 1 is
now leaving the heliosphere - the last vestige of this
solar system.

Continues here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159359/Humanity-escapes-solar-Voyager-1-signals-reached-edge-interstellar-space.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)

<KalluM...@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"

<us...@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" <jos...@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 "fana...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"

and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are

from "fan...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 16, 11:12 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article
> 257a555d-72ec-4064-9f08-0bf51aa58...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

My book was sent from Charleston, SC, USA.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Yoohoo calloo callay and ho ho ho
May all cunning dullards leg it so!

Cheers,

[Zinnic]

On Jun 12, 6:46 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:52 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I

> Certainly you could, if you maneuver physically.  That is done all the
> time. Basketball players, football plays, avoid dangerous situations
> by swerving, braking, acclerating, etc. thus automatically changing
> their instantaneous frames of reference on a relative basis.
> Maneuvering physically is what the Internal Force Engine does in
> theory; it goes from one frame of reference to the next in steps of v,
> following an application of internal force.

As usual you are lost in your relativity wilderness!
Are you now claiming su that a spaceship full of athletes could be
maneuvered using the internal force theoretically derived from these
athletes "swerving, braking, acclerating, etc. thus automatically

changing their instantaneous frames of reference on a relative

basis."?
Is it possible that the prodigious speeds and manoeverability
'observed' for flying saucers are powered by the little green aliens
rattling around inside to provide limitless internal energy?
Hope this helps
Zinnic
>
>
> > Zinnic

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

On 6/16/2012 4:30 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>

[A whole pile of Jyotishit-Bangdu love notes and Bangdu horseshit
physics note snipped]

>
> My book was sent from Charleston, SC, USA.

Wow! A really really long post with one line imbedded in it.

Gotta hand it to the pair of frauds. Content-free exchange between an
"astrologer" (bottom feeders of any society) and a wannabe "physicist",
neither of whom has a clue about Einstein, relativity, relativism, and
morality. The intent is to inundate the group with so much garbage that
it chokes participation. Bunko artists!

BTW, here is a strong rumor I heard about the padre chaser, Lady Kaka.
She is actually a Muslim woman. That would explain the jihadi behavior
and tons of copy-paste of stuff she has no clue about, esp. Hinduism.

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

Rather selective in paring down Lady "The Jabberwock Queen" Kaka's crap,
aren't you, pretentious little Bangdu?

Ah, Lady Kaka objects to be being told not to copy-paste and "dazzle"
people with her originality. Yet the two of you can come up with "fuck
off!" and "beat it!", and troll threads of other people. So, who died
and made you the grand arbiters? The exchanges in this thread prove
beyond a doubt that this fucking transgender with a criminal mind, Lady
Kaka, has lead above the shoulders. But the cowdung-covered skin is as
thick as goddamn hide.

Despite your "cunning dullards" jab, and despite your attempts to make
the "love note exchanges" longer and longer, Zinnic has accomplished
quite a bit here. You and Lady Kaka have been thoroughly exposed by him
as ordinary fucking trolls, who pretty much know nothing. Quite some
standard of IITs, huh?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 17, 12:08 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 6:46 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 12, 2:52 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I
> > Certainly you could, if you maneuver physically.  That is done all the
> > time. Basketball players, football plays, avoid dangerous situations
> > by swerving, braking, acclerating, etc. thus automatically changing
> > their instantaneous frames of reference on a relative basis.
> > Maneuvering physically is what the Internal Force Engine does in
> > theory; it goes from one frame of reference to the next in steps of v,
> > following an application of internal force.
>
> As usual you are lost in your relativity wilderness!

No, I am perfectly clear.

> Are you now claiming su that a spaceship full of athletes could be
> maneuvered using the internal force theoretically derived from these
> athletes "swerving, braking, acclerating, etc. thus automatically
> changing their instantaneous frames of reference on a relative
> basis."?

You are trying your best to twist matters by writing nonsense. The
best any cunning dullard can do, evidently.

> Is it possible that the prodigious speeds and manoeverability
> 'observed' for flying saucers are powered by the   little green aliens
> rattling around inside to provide limitless internal energy?

No need for aliens, as we will be doing that within 10-100 years.

Cheers,
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils.

> Hope this helps
> Zinnic

[Arindam Banerjee]

I have quite a while back stated in the ngs that if a em rail gun is
situated on the stern of a small untethered boat, and bullets fired to
blow up the stern (or absorb the KE somehow) then the boat will
accelerate forwards if my theory of internal force is correct. Now, I
cannot do that experiment, as I do not have a rail gun.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Your genius should ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

>
> Humanity escapes the solar system: Voyager 1 signals that
> it has reached the edge of interstellar space - 11
> billion miles away
>
> By Eddie Wrenn
> Thursday, June 14, 2012
>
> With absolutely no attempt at hyperbole at all, it is
> fair to say that this is one of - if not the - biggest
> achievement of the human race.
>
> For, as we speak, an object conceived in the human mind,
> and built by our tools, and launched from our planet, is
> sailing out of the further depths of our solar system -
> and will be the first object made by man to sail out into
> interstellar space.
>
> The Voyager 1, built by Nasa and launched in 1977 has
> spent the last 35 years steadily increasing its distance
> from Earth, and is now now 17,970,000,000km - or
> 11,100,000,000miles - away, travelling at 10km a second.
>
> Indications over the last week implies that Voyager 1 is
> now leaving the heliosphere - the last vestige of this
> solar system.
>
> Continues here:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159359/Humanity-escapes-solar-Voyager-1-signals-reached-edge-interstellar-space.html

A question for Arindam Banerjee: why isn't the term
"potential energy" interchangeable with the "internal
force" as defined in your work, if it isn't?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 17, 9:58 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Humanity escapes the solar system: Voyager 1 signals that
> > it has reached the edge of interstellar space - 11
> > billion miles away
>
> > By Eddie Wrenn
> > Thursday, June 14, 2012
>
> > With absolutely no attempt at hyperbole at all, it is
> > fair to say that this is one of - if not the - biggest
> > achievement of the human race.
>
> > For, as we speak, an object conceived in the human mind,
> > and built by our tools, and launched from our planet, is
> > sailing out of the further depths of our solar system -
> > and will be the first object made by man to sail out into
> > interstellar space.
>
> > The Voyager 1, built by Nasa and launched in 1977 has
> > spent the last 35 years steadily increasing its distance
> > from Earth, and is now now 17,970,000,000km - or
> > 11,100,000,000miles - away, travelling at 10km a second.
>
> > Indications over the last week implies that Voyager 1 is
> > now leaving the heliosphere - the last vestige of this
> > solar system.
>
> > Continues here:
>

> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159359/Humanity-escap...

>
> A question for Arindam Banerjee: why isn't the term
> "potential energy" interchangeable with the "internal
> force" as defined in your work, if it isn't?

The terms "energy" and "force" are never interchangeable. Energy is a
scalar, while force is a vector. They have different dimensions and
different definitions.

It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential energy with
internal energy, for the moving object that is powered with the IFE, a
different kind of space engine proposed by myself. However, this is a
detailed issue.

In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if lossless
gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - at the top
position it has potential energy which converts to kinetic energy at
the bottom. Energy thus remains "constant" until it dissipates as
heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasing the
entropy of the universe. Whatever that is.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi

> Om Shanti- Hide quoted text -

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<7b4f9757-e55d-44d6...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> The terms "energy" and "force" are never interchangeable. Energy is a
> scalar, while force is a vector. They have different dimensions and
> different definitions.

Yes, quite.

> It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential energy with
> internal energy, for the moving object that is powered with the IFE, a
> different kind of space engine proposed by myself. However, this is a
> detailed issue.

Indeed, I meant to write "potential energy" and "internal
energy". Dhanyavaad for pointing this out.

> In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if lossless
> gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - at the top
> position it has potential energy which converts to kinetic energy at
> the bottom. Energy thus remains "constant" until it dissipates as
> heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasing the
> entropy of the universe. Whatever that is.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

In one school of thought, measuring entropy is measuring disorder.

[Cyborg]

On Jun 17, 4:24 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai >

In one school of thought, measuring entropy is measuring disorder.
>

Entropy, disease, illness and disorder are the same thing in the life
sciences. Entropy can also be the same thing as entropy.

[Cyborg]

Entropy, disease, illness and disorder are the same thing in sociology
and the life sciences. Death is the ultimate form of entropy.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 17, 11:24 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article
> <7b4f9757-e55d-44d6-ba57-045ecbdfe...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

More precisely in thermodynamics terms, it very roughly relates to the
amount of heat NOT converted to work in a heat engine over a cycle.
It is a mathematical concept with practical uses, for the design of
heat engines.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<cb65b207-92fb-4c04...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

>>> scalar, while force is a vector. =A0They have different dimensions and

>>> different definitions.
>>
>> Yes, quite.
>>
>>> It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential energy with
>>> internal energy, for the moving object that is powered with the IFE, a
>>> different kind of space engine proposed by myself. However, this is a
>>> detailed issue.
>>
>> Indeed, I meant to write "potential energy" and "internal
>> energy". Dhanyavaad for pointing this out.
>>
>>> In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if lossless
>>> gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - at the top
>>> position it has potential energy which converts to kinetic energy at

>>> the bottom. =A0Energy thus remains "constant" until it dissipates as

>>> heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasing the

>>> entropy of the universe. =A0Whatever that is.

>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> In one school of thought, measuring entropy is
>> measuring disorder.
>>

>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>

> More precisely in thermodynamics terms, it very roughly
> relates to the amount of heat NOT converted to work in a
> heat engine over a cycle. It is a mathematical concept
> with practical uses, for the design of heat engines.

Will your IFE be seen as defying any laws of
thermodynamics as they are taught conventionally?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 17, 3:25 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <cb65b207-92fb-4c04-a123-d1e6f62fb...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Oh yes. It always breaks the law of conservation of energy, and makes
the concept of entropy at the best obsolete. In other words, if you
can make any device accelerate with internal force (meaning, no
contact of the object with earth, air or water) then you jolly well
also break the law of conservation of energy.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<a9e86190-1465-444c...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>> scalar, while force is a vector. =3DA0They have different dimensions and

>>>>> different definitions.
>>
>>>> Yes, quite.
>>
>>>>> It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential energy with
>>>>> internal energy, for the moving object that is powered with the IFE, a
>>>>> different kind of space engine proposed by myself. However, this is a
>>>>> detailed issue.
>>
>>>> Indeed, I meant to write "potential energy" and "internal
>>>> energy". Dhanyavaad for pointing this out.
>>
>>>>> In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if lossless
>>>>> gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - at the top
>>>>> position it has potential energy which converts to kinetic energy at

>>>>> the bottom. =3DA0Energy thus remains "constant" until it dissipates as

>>>>> heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasing the

>>>>> entropy of the universe. =3DA0Whatever that is.

>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>> In one school of thought, measuring entropy is
>>>> measuring disorder.
>>
>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>> More precisely in thermodynamics terms, it very roughly
>>> relates to the amount of heat NOT converted to work in a
>>> heat engine over a cycle. It is a mathematical concept
>>> with practical uses, for the design of heat engines.
>>
>> Will your IFE be seen as defying any laws of
>> thermodynamics as they are taught conventionally?
>>

>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>

> Oh yes. It always breaks the law of conservation of
> energy, and makes the concept of entropy at the best
> obsolete. In other words, if you can make any device
> accelerate with internal force (meaning, no contact of
> the object with earth, air or water) then you jolly well
> also break the law of conservation of energy.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

And that in essence is what has got your critics so very
upset -- so much so in fact that one or more of them want
to "insulate" USENET readers from your work and also
protect you from yourself!

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 17, 6:01 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <a9e86190-1465-444c-af71-f4e2ef492...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Actually, they (my critics) have succeeded very well indeed so far, in
making me an unemployable pariah shunned everywhere by the einsteinian
establishements. But, they have not managed to shut me up, let alone
crush my spirits. On the other hand, technologies like Facebook,
Twitter, Youtube have become vastly popular and so usenet readership
is alas, down. So the critics can rest easy.

and also
> protect you from yourself!

Basically they are blackmailing bullies, out to get my works for less
than nothing. They don't understand that I really want to give it away
free, but they do not deserve same as they are unworhtly cowards and
slimy abusive hypocrites. So, I must go my own lonely way, to the
tune of Tagore's jodi tore daak shune keu na aashe tobe ackla cholo re
(if no one comes to your call, then go alone)

[Zinnic]

Your confusion still reigns.
You are now claiming that the impact of the rail gun projectile on the
STERN of the boat will move the boat FORWARD! That is a180 degree
switch from your previous claim and is now consistent with the boat's
response to the ecoil of the rail gun. You must get your 'ducks' in a
row for the patent office.
Hope this helps.
Zinnic

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

You seem to have the nasty habit of blaming everyone but yourself for
all your troubles. Interestingly, a few years ago you did blame Lady
Kaka for rendering you "unemployable." But all of a sudden this two-bit
"soothsayer" is a good person? Wow! All because of an imaginary
iscreenplay by an imaginary Hindu for an imaginary movie that would
generate imaginary publicity for your imaginary engines? Imagine that!

> and also
>> protect you from yourself!
>
> Basically they are blackmailing bullies, out to get my works for less
> than nothing. They don't understand that I really want to give it away
> free, but they do not deserve same as they are unworhtly cowards and
> slimy abusive hypocrites. So, I must go my own lonely way, to the
> tune of Tagore's jodi tore daak shune keu na aashe tobe ackla cholo re
> (if no one comes to your call, then go alone)
>

Who is "blackmailing" you, halfwit? Nobody respects stuff given away for
free because the usual expectation is that free stuff is plain crap. In
your case, this is definitely true, even if you decide to take the real
slimy route of drumming up controversy to make the "sale" (there is no
"sale" when you claim you are giving away crap for free). Think about
it, fucking idiot.

The real poisonous toad here is Lady Kaka, who is leading you down the
garden path. Her exchanges with you are best described as vacuous. They
are bland and content free, if not downright phony (very very IITD, it
would seem). This is what I expected (predicted?) anyway. A
died-in-the-wool copy-paste artist (i.e., an absolute fucking cheat)
cannot, and does not, have an original thought or any brilliant insight
about anything. Yet this worthless piece of human flotsam, who now has
you for company, turns her nose up and denigrates all and sundry, and is
completely fucking clueless about Hindus/Hinduism/Sanskrit/Science...

Yeah, you're better off going it alone. Whether you do this to robindra
songeet or some classic bollywood tune is immaterial.

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<cc7d451d-1e23-4cd9...@qt7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>

>>>>>>> scalar, while force is a vector. =3D3DA0They have different dimensions and

>>>>>>> different definitions.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, quite.
>>
>>>>>>> It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential energy with
>>>>>>> internal energy, for the moving object that is powered with the IFE, a
>>>>>>> different kind of space engine proposed by myself. However, this is a
>>>>>>> detailed issue.
>>
>>>>>> Indeed, I meant to write "potential energy" and "internal
>>>>>> energy". Dhanyavaad for pointing this out.
>>
>>>>>>> In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if lossless
>>>>>>> gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - at the top
>>>>>>> position it has potential energy which converts to kinetic energy at

>>>>>>> the bottom. =3D3DA0Energy thus remains "constant" until it dissipates

>>>>>>> heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasing the

>>>>>>> as entropy of the universe. =3D3DA0Whatever that is.

>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>>>> In one school of thought, measuring entropy is
>>>>>> measuring disorder.
>>
>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>>>> More precisely in thermodynamics terms, it very roughly
>>>>> relates to the amount of heat NOT converted to work in a
>>>>> heat engine over a cycle. It is a mathematical concept
>>>>> with practical uses, for the design of heat engines.
>>>>
>>>> Will your IFE be seen as defying any laws of
>>>> thermodynamics as they are taught conventionally?
>>>>
>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>> Om Shanti
>>

>>> Oh yes. =A0It always breaks the law of conservation of

>>> energy, and makes the concept of entropy at the best

>>> obsolete. =A0In other words, if you can make any device

>>> accelerate with internal force (meaning, no contact of
>>> the object with earth, air or water) then you jolly well
>>> also break the law of conservation of energy.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> And that in essence is what has got your critics so very
>> upset -- so much so in fact that one or more of them want
>> to "insulate" USENET readers from your work
>
> Actually, they (my critics) have succeeded very well
> indeed so far, in making me an unemployable pariah
> shunned everywhere by the einsteinian establishements.

Would you want to work for the "einsteinian
establishements", as you put it?

> But, they have not managed to shut me up, let alone crush
> my spirits. On the other hand, technologies like
> Facebook, Twitter, Youtube have become vastly popular and
> so usenet readership is alas, down. So the critics can
> rest easy.

I have been reading that USENET is gaining new popularity
but was also informed of the reason for it recently. And
it's not because of these text-based newsgroups. So you
are correct

>> and also protect you from yourself!
>>

>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>

> Basically they are blackmailing bullies, out to get my
> works for less than nothing. They don't understand that I
> really want to give it away free, but they do not deserve
> same as they are unworhtly cowards and slimy abusive
> hypocrites. So, I must go my own lonely way, to the tune
> of Tagore's jodi tore daak shune keu na aashe tobe ackla
> cholo re (if no one comes to your call, then go alone)
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Many scientists and others have given away their work for
free, and the world is grateful to them for the gifts.
And you know what, most among them did work independently
as innovators usually end up doing.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 18, 5:30 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <cc7d451d-1e23-4cd9-865c-b071021c8...@qt7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>

Certainly not. However a chap has to survive, so forced to be without
a job is the equivalent of gettting starved. Of course, this is
better than being burnt at the stake, etc. and for that I am grateful
for the progress humanity has made so far.

>
> > But, they have not managed to shut me up, let alone crush
> > my spirits.  On the other hand, technologies like
> > Facebook, Twitter, Youtube have become vastly popular and
> > so usenet readership is alas, down.  So the critics can
> > rest easy.
>
> I have been reading that USENET is gaining new popularity
> but was also informed of the reason for it recently. And
> it's not because of these text-based newsgroups. So you
> are correct

Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and see where that
gets me. Maybe Usenet text groups will survive the way ham radio has
survived. I hope so, at least! This is the last bastion of true
intellectual freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies and fatcats).

>
> >> and also protect you from yourself!
>
> >> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> >> Om Shanti
>
> > Basically they are blackmailing bullies, out to get my
> > works for less than nothing. They don't understand that I
> > really want to give it away free, but they do not deserve
> > same as they are unworhtly cowards and slimy abusive
> > hypocrites.  So, I must go my own lonely way, to the tune
> > of Tagore's jodi tore daak shune keu na aashe tobe ackla
> > cholo re (if no one comes to your call, then go alone)
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Many scientists and others have given away their work for
> free, and the world is grateful to them for the gifts.

Yes, but science was not so institutionalised in those days. Those
scientists who made the great discoveries were curious amateurs, as
opposed to the grant-grabbing PhD professionals of our time. Thus
paperwork is far more important than inspiration and initiative. Not
to upset the establishment in any way, is their Prime Directive - or
else! Such controls reduce the scientists to slaves under the whips
of the moneyed and empowered non-scientists, to the detriment of
scientific advancement. So the scientist of our time and of the
future time has to become independently wealthy. To get out of their
clutches. Otherwise the present evils and inequalities, will forever
continue. The resistance of the corrupt establishments everywhere to
my new and very necessary concepts, the HTN and the IFE, convinces me
of this. Anyone can see how the goons and perverts are out to stick
knives in my back, for all my pains to save humanity from their
clutches!

> And you know what, most among them did work independently
> as innovators usually end up doing.

Of course. It is a lonely task, but no other work is more enjoyable,
more rewarding, more satisfying than the job of the creator.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> 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-- Hide quoted text -

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<71993449-9de0-4108...@l10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> posted:

> > >>>>>>> is a scalar, while force is a vector. =3D3D3DA0They have different

> > >>>>>>> dimensions and different definitions.
> >
> > >>>>>> Yes, quite.
> >
> > >>>>>>> It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential energy with
> > >>>>>>> internal energy, for the moving object that is powered with the IFE, a
> > >>>>>>> different kind of space engine proposed by myself. However, this is a
> > >>>>>>> detailed issue.
> >
> > >>>>>> Indeed, I meant to write "potential energy" and "internal
> > >>>>>> energy". Dhanyavaad for pointing this out.
> >
> > >>>>>>> In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if lossless
> > >>>>>>> gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - at the top
> > >>>>>>> position it has potential energy which converts to kinetic energy at

> > >>>>>>> the bottom. =3D3D3DA0Energy thus remains "constant" until it dissipates

> > >>>>>>> heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasing the

> > >>>>>>> as entropy of the universe. =3D3D3DA0Whatever that is.

> >
> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > >>>>>> In one school of thought, measuring entropy is
> > >>>>>> measuring disorder.
> >
> > >>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > >>>>>> Om Shanti
> >
> > >>>>> More precisely in thermodynamics terms, it very roughly
> > >>>>> relates to the amount of heat NOT converted to work in a
> > >>>>> heat engine over a cycle. It is a mathematical concept
> > >>>>> with practical uses, for the design of heat engines.
> >
> > >>>> Will your IFE be seen as defying any laws of
> > >>>> thermodynamics as they are taught conventionally?
> >
> > >>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > >>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > >>> Oh yes. =3DA0It always breaks the law of conservation of

> > >>> energy, and makes the concept of entropy at the best

> > >>> obsolete. =3DA0In other words, if you can make any device

> > >>> accelerate with internal force (meaning, no contact of
> > >>> the object with earth, air or water) then you jolly well
> > >>> also break the law of conservation of energy.
> >
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > >> And that in essence is what has got your critics so very
> > >> upset -- so much so in fact that one or more of them want
> > >> to "insulate" USENET readers from your work
> >
> > > Actually, they (my critics) have succeeded very well
> > > indeed so far, in making me an unemployable pariah
> > > shunned everywhere by the einsteinian establishements.
> >
> > Would you want to work for the "einsteinian
> > establishements", as you put it?
>
> Certainly not. However a chap has to survive, so forced to be without
> a job is the equivalent of gettting starved. Of course, this is
> better than being burnt at the stake, etc. and for that I am grateful
> for the progress humanity has made so far.

Oh they still burn 'em at the stake, only the methods are
sophisticated.

> > > But, they have not managed to shut me up, let alone crush

> > > my spirits. =A0On the other hand, technologies like

> > > Facebook, Twitter, Youtube have become vastly popular and

> > > so usenet readership is alas, down. =A0So the critics can

> > > rest easy.
> >
> > I have been reading that USENET is gaining new popularity
> > but was also informed of the reason for it recently. And
> > it's not because of these text-based newsgroups. So you
> > are correct

> Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and see where that
> gets me. Maybe Usenet text groups will survive the way ham radio has
> survived. I hope so, at least! This is the last bastion of true
> intellectual freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
> kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies and fatcats).

Those people populate the social media as well but they
are quickly discovered and dealt with. And law
enforcement agencies continuously monitor Twitter,
Facebook, blogs, etc.

> > >> and also protect you from yourself!
> >

> > > Basically they are blackmailing bullies, out to get my
> > > works for less than nothing. They don't understand that I
> > > really want to give it away free, but they do not deserve
> > > same as they are unworhtly cowards and slimy abusive

> > > hypocrites. =A0So, I must go my own lonely way, to the tune

> > > of Tagore's jodi tore daak shune keu na aashe tobe ackla
> > > cholo re (if no one comes to your call, then go alone)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > Many scientists and others have given away their work for
> > free, and the world is grateful to them for the gifts.
>
> Yes, but science was not so institutionalised in those days.

Valid point.

> Those
> scientists who made the great discoveries were curious amateurs, as
> opposed to the grant-grabbing PhD professionals of our time. Thus
> paperwork is far more important than inspiration and initiative. Not
> to upset the establishment in any way, is their Prime Directive - or
> else! Such controls reduce the scientists to slaves under the whips
> of the moneyed and empowered non-scientists, to the detriment of
> scientific advancement. So the scientist of our time and of the
> future time has to become independently wealthy. To get out of their
> clutches. Otherwise the present evils and inequalities, will forever
> continue. The resistance of the corrupt establishments everywhere to
> my new and very necessary concepts, the HTN and the IFE, convinces me
> of this. Anyone can see how the goons and perverts are out to stick
> knives in my back, for all my pains to save humanity from their
> clutches!

"Independently wealthy", yes, that's the ticket.

> > And you know what, most among them did work independently
> > as innovators usually end up doing.
> >

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> Of course. It is a lonely task, but no other work is more enjoyable,
> more rewarding, more satisfying than the job of the creator.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Well put!

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 18, 9:58 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <71993449-9de0-4108-afe6-ec1eb6cb3...@l10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

I am glad to be still alive and free too, and sincerely grateful to
whoever and whatever for same.

>
> > > > But, they have not managed to shut me up, let alone crush
> > > > my spirits. =A0On the other hand, technologies like
> > > > Facebook, Twitter, Youtube have become vastly popular and
> > > > so usenet readership is alas, down. =A0So the critics can
> > > > rest easy.
>
> > > I have been reading that USENET is gaining new popularity
> > > but was also informed of the reason for it recently. And
> > > it's not because of these text-based newsgroups. So you
> > > are correct
> > Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and see where that
> > gets me.  Maybe Usenet text groups will survive the way ham radio has
> > survived.  I hope so, at least!   This is the last bastion of true
> > intellectual freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
> > kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies and fatcats).
>
> Those people populate the social media as well but they
> are quickly discovered and dealt with. And law
> enforcement agencies continuously monitor Twitter,
> Facebook, blogs, etc.

It is a difficult task as these technologies span national
boundaries. I am not sure how to deal with any libelous source
operating from say the US, where Australians law do not apply.

That should be the goal. Not wealth for dissipation, but for
independent research - that should be the goal of the scientist.
Society should gear up to support such efforts.

>
> > > And you know what, most among them did work independently
> > > as innovators usually end up doing.
>
> > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > Om Shanti
>
> > Of course. It is a lonely task, but no other work is more enjoyable,
> > more rewarding, more satisfying than the job of the creator.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Well put!

Thanks,
Arindam Banerjee

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<3f22a081-359e-44b5...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > In article
> > <71993449-9de0-4108-afe6-ec1eb6cb3...@l10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <cc7d451d-1e23-4cd9-865c-b071021c8...@qt7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > >> In article

> > > > >> <a9e86190-1465-444c-af71-f4e2ef492...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com=

> >,
> > > > >> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > >>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > >>>> In article

> > > > >>>> <cb65b207-92fb-4c04-a123-d1e6f62fb...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.c=

> om>,
> > > > >>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > >>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > >>>>>> In article

> > > > >>>>>> <7b4f9757-e55d-44d6-ba57-045ecbdfe...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups=

> > > > >>>>>>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159359/Human=

> ity-escap...
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>> A question for Arindam Banerjee: why isn't the term
> > > > >>>>>>>> "potential energy" interchangeable with the "internal
> > > > >>>>>>>> force" as defined in your work, if it isn't?
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > >>>>>>> The terms "energy" and "force" are never interchangeable. Ene=
> rgy
> > > > >>>>>>> is a scalar, while force is a vector. =3D3D3D3DA0They have di=

> fferent
> > > > >>>>>>> dimensions and different definitions.
> >
> > > > >>>>>> Yes, quite.
> >

> > > > >>>>>>> It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential energy=
> with
> > > > >>>>>>> internal energy, for the moving object that is powered with t=
> he IFE, a
> > > > >>>>>>> different kind of space engine proposed by myself. However, t=

> his is a
> > > > >>>>>>> detailed issue.
> >
> > > > >>>>>> Indeed, I meant to write "potential energy" and "internal
> > > > >>>>>> energy". Dhanyavaad for pointing this out.
> >

> > > > >>>>>>> In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if loss=
> less
> > > > >>>>>>> gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - at th=
> e top
> > > > >>>>>>> position it has potential energy which converts to kinetic en=
> ergy at
> > > > >>>>>>> the bottom. =3D3D3D3DA0Energy thus remains "constant" until i=
> t dissipates
> > > > >>>>>>> heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasing t=
> he
> > > > >>>>>>> as entropy of the universe. =3D3D3D3DA0Whatever that is.

> >
> > > > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > >>>>>> In one school of thought, measuring entropy is
> > > > >>>>>> measuring disorder.
> >
> > > > >>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >>>>>> Om Shanti
> >
> > > > >>>>> More precisely in thermodynamics terms, it very roughly
> > > > >>>>> relates to the amount of heat NOT converted to work in a
> > > > >>>>> heat engine over a cycle. It is a mathematical concept
> > > > >>>>> with practical uses, for the design of heat engines.
> >
> > > > >>>> Will your IFE be seen as defying any laws of
> > > > >>>> thermodynamics as they are taught conventionally?
> >
> > > > >>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > >>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > >>> Oh yes. =3D3DA0It always breaks the law of conservation of

> > > > >>> energy, and makes the concept of entropy at the best

> > > > >>> obsolete. =3D3DA0In other words, if you can make any device

> > > > >>> accelerate with internal force (meaning, no contact of
> > > > >>> the object with earth, air or water) then you jolly well
> > > > >>> also break the law of conservation of energy.
> >
> > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > >> And that in essence is what has got your critics so very
> > > > >> upset -- so much so in fact that one or more of them want
> > > > >> to "insulate" USENET readers from your work
> >
> > > > > Actually, they (my critics) have succeeded very well
> > > > > indeed so far, in making me an unemployable pariah
> > > > > shunned everywhere by the einsteinian establishements.
> >
> > > > Would you want to work for the "einsteinian
> > > > establishements", as you put it?
> >
> > > Certainly not. However a chap has to survive, so forced to be without
> > > a job is the equivalent of gettting starved. Of course, this is
> > > better than being burnt at the stake, etc. and for that I am grateful
> > > for the progress humanity has made so far.
> >
> > Oh they still burn 'em at the stake, only the methods are
> > sophisticated.
>
> I am glad to be still alive and free too, and sincerely grateful to
> whoever and whatever for same.

The same here; I've got two death fatwas against me. Both
were published in Pakistani newspapers. I consider them
to be badges of honor. Salman Rushdie would be envious
because he's earned only one.

> > > > > But, they have not managed to shut me up, let alone crush

> > > > > my spirits. =3DA0On the other hand, technologies like

> > > > > Facebook, Twitter, Youtube have become vastly popular and

> > > > > so usenet readership is alas, down. =3DA0So the critics can

> > > > > rest easy.
> >
> > > > I have been reading that USENET is gaining new popularity
> > > > but was also informed of the reason for it recently. And
> > > > it's not because of these text-based newsgroups. So you
> > > > are correct
> > > Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and see where that

> > > gets me. =A0Maybe Usenet text groups will survive the way ham radio has
> > > survived. =A0I hope so, at least! =A0 This is the last bastion of true

> > > intellectual freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
> > > kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies and fatcats).
> >
> > Those people populate the social media as well but they
> > are quickly discovered and dealt with. And law
> > enforcement agencies continuously monitor Twitter,
> > Facebook, blogs, etc.
>
> It is a difficult task as these technologies span national
> boundaries. I am not sure how to deal with any libelous source
> operating from say the US, where Australians law do not apply.

A lawyer that you may wish to consult should be able to
advise you about that.

> > > > >> and also protect you from yourself!
> >
> > > > > Basically they are blackmailing bullies, out to get my
> > > > > works for less than nothing. They don't understand that I
> > > > > really want to give it away free, but they do not deserve
> > > > > same as they are unworhtly cowards and slimy abusive

> > > > > hypocrites. =3DA0So, I must go my own lonely way, to the tune

> > > > > of Tagore's jodi tore daak shune keu na aashe tobe ackla
> > > > > cholo re (if no one comes to your call, then go alone)
> >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > Many scientists and others have given away their work for
> > > > free, and the world is grateful to them for the gifts.
> >
> > > Yes, but science was not so institutionalised in those days.
> >
> > Valid point.
> >
> > > Those
> > > scientists who made the great discoveries were curious amateurs, as
> > > opposed to the grant-grabbing PhD professionals of our time. Thus
> > > paperwork is far more important than inspiration and initiative. Not
> > > to upset the establishment in any way, is their Prime Directive - or

> > > else! =A0Such controls reduce the scientists to slaves under the whips

> > > of the moneyed and empowered non-scientists, to the detriment of

> > > scientific advancement. =A0So the scientist of our time and of the
> > > future time has to become independently wealthy. =A0To get out of their
> > > clutches. =A0Otherwise the present evils and inequalities, will forever

> > > continue. The resistance of the corrupt establishments everywhere to
> > > my new and very necessary concepts, the HTN and the IFE, convinces me

> > > of this. =A0Anyone can see how the goons and perverts are out to stick

> > > knives in my back, for all my pains to save humanity from their
> > > clutches!
> >
> > "Independently wealthy", yes, that's the ticket.
>
> That should be the goal. Not wealth for dissipation, but for
> independent research - that should be the goal of the scientist.
> Society should gear up to support such efforts.

Scientist may need to motivate society to take action
in that direction. (Motivation = energy; action - force.)

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

> > > > And you know what, most among them did work independently
> > > > as innovators usually end up doing.
> >
> > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > Om Shanti
> >
> > > Of course. It is a lonely task, but no other work is more enjoyable,
> > > more rewarding, more satisfying than the job of the creator.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > Well put!
> >

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> Thanks,
> Arindam Banerjee

o o o

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)

<KalluM...@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"

<us...@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" <jos...@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 "fana...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"

and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are

from "fan...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
many years.
-Updated on February 2, 2012-

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 18, 12:09 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <3f22a081-359e-44b5-b6f1-fabb5011b...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>

When did that happen?

> <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

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 16, 9:34 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 12:17 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 8:57 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
>

> > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > In article

> > > <367c7b6f-43a9-4e87-b2e9-300cd752a...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>

> > I have decided NOT to "Read More" in this thread. It's content no
> > longer relates to the topic indicated by it's title.
> > Zinnic
>
> Yoohoo calloo callay and ho ho ho
> May all cunning dullards leg it so!
>

> Cheers,
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> time, sole god among lotsa devils.

Pity for einsteinians, they have only got left the cunning dullards
and abusive scum to defend their silly and wrong notions! How long
they will have the money and
power to stop progress, who knows!

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

What progress? A whinger's progress is all I have seen so far. Yet there
is still no money, and more importantly, still no acknowledgment of your
prowess and your genius. Heh! Not even from the "jumpin' jackass
jyotishithead" (a fave title from some time ago)

Stop pretending to be the decent sort, bloody git. You've heaped as much
trash (including anti-semitic epithets) as others have. Abuse? Bloody
little so and so, there is enough here that can be dug up. Ask your good
old Lady Kaka. This wretched vile piece of human garbage does dredge up
from the "archives" (actually the sewer that she wallows in).

Thankfully you've dropped the word relativism when referring to
Einstein. What gives? Did the meaning of the word "relativism" finally
sink into that lead block above your shoulders? The net.philosopher who
claims to have read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (in "saniskrit" no
doubt), has not done a whole lot of reading after all.

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

Ah! The long-suffering martyr, the veritable Atlas carrying the world on
his shoulder, the hero who will rescue humanity (hopefully before Dec.
21, 2012 - the Mayan jyotishits had "predicted" bad things were going to
happen)...

BTW, you were threatening to the research on your own dime (since you
are independently wealthy - how do you say that in "saniskrit"?), all
for the sake of humanity. What happened? Did the 'perv' padre stalker,
Lady Kaka, read chicken entrails and tell you something else? You know,
for a fee she'll use "vedic maths" and get a little more precision in
the predictions. For a just a small amount more you'll get "persaud"
(the Trini way of ispelling "prasad") from the mighty Atom Bum Vrishabham.

BTW you are whinging about "inspiration" and "initiative" to a
copy-paste artist, a mindless bot, human flotsam, ...

>
>> And you know what, most among them did work independently
>> as innovators usually end up doing.
>
> Of course. It is a lonely task, but no other work is more enjoyable,
> more rewarding, more satisfying than the job of the creator.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

I think their days are numbered. With newspapers shrinking, online
publishing, terrific twittering and facebook and youtube, the younger
population are getting far more freedom of choice wrt facts and
information. With less and less money going to the institutionalised
bullshitters, there is yet hope for great science, technology and
business, the gains of which will be far more fairly distributed all
over the world.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 18, 6:22 pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

No martyr bore his martrydom more comfortably than I, I must confess.
This is the most special blessing of the Great Goddess, I am sure. To
live healthily in a land like Australia in middle middle-class style,
is really something.

the veritable Atlas carrying the world on
> his shoulder,

Thanks, quotay. Force of habit, just. When I joined the workforce
back in 1978 in BEL Ghaziabad, the top managers and even some
politcians were very keen - they impressed upon me that the work I was
doing was of great national significance, as lowlevel radar systems
would keep our neighbour quiet and so we could all live peacefully.
And that was just the beginning.

the hero who will rescue humanity (hopefully before Dec.
> 21, 2012 - the Mayan jyotishits had "predicted" bad things were going to
> happen)...

I predict that by 2030 we can have operational IFEs that will save
humanity by not polluting the upper atmosphere with CO2 the way modern
jet engines do, to create global warming and climate change which
could well be disastrous.

>
> BTW, you were threatening to the research on your own dime (since you
> are independently wealthy - how do you say that in "saniskrit"?), all
> for the sake of humanity.

I have always been researching with my own time and money. To please
myself, and also to save humanity. It is my hobby. To do some
difficult experiments I need more money than I possess, so I am trying
to raise money by writing books. Which, hopefully, people will buy.
Not quite SVAYAMBHU thus, I, but as near to as one can get in this
imperfect world.


>What happened?

Nothing bad. Things are right on schedule.

Did the 'perv' padre stalker,
> Lady Kaka, read chicken entrails and tell you something else? You know,
> for a fee she'll use "vedic maths" and get a little more precision in
> the predictions. For a just a small amount more you'll get "persaud"
> (the Trini way of ispelling "prasad") from the mighty Atom Bum Vrishabham.
>
> BTW you are whinging about "inspiration" and "initiative" to a
> copy-paste artist, a mindless bot, human flotsam, ...

And even as that, a far, far, far better soul than you: a foul-
mouthed, corrupt and treacherous quotay; a filthy face of
international bastardy.

Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils.
>
>
>

> >> And you know what, most among them did work independently
> >> as innovators usually end up doing.
>
> > Of course. It is a lonely task, but no other work is more enjoyable,
> > more rewarding, more satisfying than the job of the creator.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> --
> VB, Ubetjotushy
> 'ome=shanty
>
> -----
> The Baboon Squad
>
> Dr. Muckeraj, aka Lady Kaka, aka Kakadevi, aka The Old Cow of Hawaii,
> and her faithful monkey, Fanabba, aka Poochie, are rabid evangelical
> Christians. The Baboon Squad, as Kakadevi and Pooch call themselves,
> hates Hindus, Muslims, and Catholics, and the US too, which makes them
> copy-paste trash 24/7. The transgender idiot, Kakadevi, claims to be a
> "scholar" of Sanskrit, but hasn't demonstrated any knowledge or mastery
> of it. However, there is plenty of evidence of attempts made by
> Macaulay's monkey to "doctor" original articles to pidginize Sanskrit
> words, perhaps to send Sanskrit into the gutter. The "doctorate" that
> Kakadevi claims to have is likely for copy-paste research on the myriad
> applications of cowdung. Other than some stock phrases that are
> copy-pasted regularly, the Cosmic Baboon has shown no originality or

> creativity, nor has the monkey contributed anything of value to any ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Myself Mallu, Yourself?]

On 6/18/2012 4:21 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:22 pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"
> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ah! The long-suffering martyr,
>
> No martyr bore his martrydom more comfortably than I, I must confess.
> This is the most special blessing of the Great Goddess, I am sure. To
> live healthily in a land like Australia in middle middle-class style,
> is really something.
>

Bollocks! A whole lot of righteous whinging that reeks of E.G.O.

>
> the veritable Atlas carrying the world on
>> his shoulder,
>
> Thanks, quotay. Force of habit, just. When I joined the workforce
> back in 1978 in BEL Ghaziabad, the top managers and even some
> politcians were very keen - they impressed upon me that the work I was
> doing was of great national significance, as lowlevel radar systems
> would keep our neighbour quiet and so we could all live peacefully.
> And that was just the beginning.
>

And India bought radar systems from the West. India's "achievements" in
Science and Technology are only limited to socialism - keep bums in the
seats in offices so that there will be bums in the seats in Parliament.

>
> the hero who will rescue humanity (hopefully before Dec.
>> 21, 2012 - the Mayan jyotishits had "predicted" bad things were going to
>> happen)...
>
> I predict that by 2030 we can have operational IFEs that will save
> humanity by not polluting the upper atmosphere with CO2 the way modern
> jet engines do, to create global warming and climate change which
> could well be disastrous.
>

Fine. Looks like you are into "jyotishi" too. Instead of tea leaves
and/or chicken entrails, I suggest you get the parrot that pulls cards.
18 years in technology development cycle with complete shakeout of all
the kinks in the system, all safety issues addressed, ... is ambitious,
especially since you've yet to convince science and tech "juries" about
the soundness of the "physics" behind the "technology." You don't have
that muscle behind you - no publications (not the Outlook India kind or
newspaper op-ed pieces), no peer reviews, no clear evidence of annual
incremental progress in technology maturation, or even a strategy to do
so, and you think primary investors (the real money bags) are going to
beat a path to your door? Dream on. This isn't a Silicon Valley garage
operation.

>>
>> BTW, you were threatening to the research on your own dime (since you
>> are independently wealthy - how do you say that in "saniskrit"?), all
>> for the sake of humanity.
>
> I have always been researching with my own time and money. To please
> myself, and also to save humanity. It is my hobby. To do some
> difficult experiments I need more money than I possess, so I am trying
> to raise money by writing books. Which, hopefully, people will buy.
> Not quite SVAYAMBHU thus, I, but as near to as one can get in this
> imperfect world.
>

Yeah, yeah, I know the P N Oak type research that relies on deep puns to
(re)interpret history, and completely agree that such research (of very
little value) is best done on one's own dime. You haven't thought
through (fortunately) about the cost/scale of "difficult experiments."
Heh! Back when I was very young (early high school), I was completely
fascinated by particle physics and wanted to build a mini particle
collider, like it was a DIY thing. :-)

>
>> What happened?
>
> Nothing bad. Things are right on schedule.
>
>
> Did the 'perv' padre stalker,
>> Lady Kaka, read chicken entrails and tell you something else? You know,
>> for a fee she'll use "vedic maths" and get a little more precision in
>> the predictions. For a just a small amount more you'll get "persaud"
>> (the Trini way of ispelling "prasad") from the mighty Atom Bum Vrishabham.
>>
>> BTW you are whinging about "inspiration" and "initiative" to a
>> copy-paste artist, a mindless bot, human flotsam, ...
>
> And even as that, a far, far, far better soul than you: a foul-
> mouthed, corrupt and treacherous quotay; a filthy face of
> international bastardy.
>

Foul-mouthed? Fer shore! Pretentious gits deserve to get their
comeuppance, and any velvet glove treatment on buffalo will not yield
desired results. There has to be an iron fist, in the form of words with
impact, in that glove. Besides, putting things in simple direct terms
works with a moron like you - the block of lead above your shoulders is
dense.

Corrupt? Absolutely not! I do not copy-paste 24/7 (with a phony
disclaimer at the end), and do not copy-paste about things of which I
haven't the foggiest, nor do I put out a hand to "foretell" anything.
Pretend Hindus are about as low as one gets here, and Lady Kaka busts
that scale by miles to rank there at the bottom with the likes of Cuckoo
Coolie Curry Ku. Lady Kaka is _not_ a Hindu, never has been one. This
piece of garbage is a political shill.

Treacherous? Absolutely not. However, the Lady Kaka leopard is one. It
(can't ascribe a gender to this piece of garbage) ain't likely to change
spots. Live and learn.

Do I have a filthy face? Hmm, at the end of the day with a 5 'o clock
shadow, perhaps. But of "international bastardy" (whatever that means),
I don't think so.

> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> time, sole god among lotsa devils.

--
VB, Ubetjotushy
'ome=shanty

-----
The Baboon Squad

Dr. Muckeraj, aka Lady Kaka, aka Kakadevi, aka The Old Cow of Hawaii,
and her faithful monkey, Fanabba, aka Poochie, are rabid evangelical
Christians. The Baboon Squad, as Kakadevi and Pooch call themselves,
hates Hindus, Muslims, and Catholics, and the US too, which makes them
copy-paste trash 24/7. The transgender idiot, Kakadevi, claims to be a
"scholar" of Sanskrit, but hasn't demonstrated any knowledge or mastery
of it. However, there is plenty of evidence of attempts made by
Macaulay's monkey to "doctor" original articles to pidginize Sanskrit
words, perhaps to send Sanskrit into the gutter. The "doctorate" that
Kakadevi claims to have is likely for copy-paste research on the myriad
applications of cowdung. Other than some stock phrases that are
copy-pasted regularly, the Cosmic Baboon has shown no originality or
creativity, nor has the monkey contributed anything of value to any

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<971a8777-7026-442e...@qt7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > In article
> > <3f22a081-359e-44b5-b6f1-fabb5011b...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> >
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <71993449-9de0-4108-afe6-ec1eb6cb3...@l10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <cc7d451d-1e23-4cd9-865c-b071021c8...@qt7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > >> In article

> > > > > > >> <a9e86190-1465-444c-af71-f4e2ef492...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com),

> > > > > > >> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > > >>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > >>>> In article

> > > > > > >>>> <cb65b207-92fb-4c04-a123-d1e6f62fb...@h10g2000pbi.googlegrou=
> ps.c=3D

> > > om>,
> > > > > > >>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > > >>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > >>>>>> In article

> > > > > > >>>>>> <7b4f9757-e55d-44d6-ba57-045ecbdfe...@re8g2000pbc.googlegr=
> oups=3D

> > > .com,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Humanity escapes the solar system: Voyager 1 signals th=

> at
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it has reached the edge of interstellar space - 11
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> billion miles away
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> By Eddie Wrenn
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thursday, June 14, 2012
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> With absolutely no attempt at hyperbole at all, it is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fair to say that this is one of - if not the - biggest
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> achievement of the human race.
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> For, as we speak, an object conceived in the human mind=
> ,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and built by our tools, and launched from our planet, i=

> s
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sailing out of the further depths of our solar system -

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and will be the first object made by man to sail out in=

> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> interstellar space.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The Voyager 1, built by Nasa and launched in 1977 has

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> spent the last 35 years steadily increasing its distanc=

> e
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> from Earth, and is now now 17,970,000,000km - or

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 11,100,000,000miles - away, travelling at 10km a second=
> .
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Indications over the last week implies that Voyager 1 i=

> s
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> now leaving the heliosphere - the last vestige of this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> solar system.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Continues here:
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159359/H=
> uman=3D

> > > ity-escap...
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> A question for Arindam Banerjee: why isn't the term
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> "potential energy" interchangeable with the "internal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> force" as defined in your work, if it isn't?
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>> The terms "energy" and "force" are never interchangeable.=
> Ene=3D
> > > rgy
> > > > > > >>>>>>> is a scalar, while force is a vector. =3D3D3D3D3DA0They h=
> ave di=3D

> > > fferent
> > > > > > >>>>>>> dimensions and different definitions.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, quite.
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>> It would be more correct to compare/contrast potential en=
> ergy=3D
> > > =A0with
> > > > > > >>>>>>> internal energy, for the moving object that is powered wi=
> th t=3D
> > > he IFE, a
> > > > > > >>>>>>> different kind of space engine proposed by myself. Howeve=
> r, t=3D

> > > his is a
> > > > > > >>>>>>> detailed issue.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> Indeed, I meant to write "potential energy" and "internal
> > > > > > >>>>>> energy". Dhanyavaad for pointing this out.
> >

> > > > > > >>>>>>> In the case of an object on earth, the pendulum which if =
> loss=3D
> > > less
> > > > > > >>>>>>> gives the notion of the law of conservation of energy - a=
> t th=3D
> > > e top
> > > > > > >>>>>>> position it has potential energy which converts to kineti=
> c en=3D
> > > ergy at
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the bottom. =3D3D3D3D3DA0Energy thus remains "constant" u=
> ntil i=3D
> > > t dissipates
> > > > > > >>>>>>> heat (through collision, air resistance) thereby increasi=
> ng t=3D
> > > he
> > > > > > >>>>>>> as entropy of the universe. =3D3D3D3D3DA0Whatever that is=

> .
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> In one school of thought, measuring entropy is
> > > > > > >>>>>> measuring disorder.
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >>>>>> Om Shanti
> >
> > > > > > >>>>> More precisely in thermodynamics terms, it very roughly
> > > > > > >>>>> relates to the amount of heat NOT converted to work in a
> > > > > > >>>>> heat engine over a cycle. It is a mathematical concept
> > > > > > >>>>> with practical uses, for the design of heat engines.
> >
> > > > > > >>>> Will your IFE be seen as defying any laws of
> > > > > > >>>> thermodynamics as they are taught conventionally?
> >
> > > > > > >>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > >>>> Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > > >>> Oh yes. =3D3D3DA0It always breaks the law of conservation of

> > > > > > >>> energy, and makes the concept of entropy at the best

> > > > > > >>> obsolete. =3D3D3DA0In other words, if you can make any device

That happened when I published (not authored) the
articles on the Satyamevajayate site and its mirror
sites, the world's first. The articles contain passages
from the Quran.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

> > Salman Rushdie would be envious
> > because he's earned only one.
> >
> > > > > > > But, they have not managed to shut me up, let alone crush

> > > > > > > my spirits. =3D3DA0On the other hand, technologies like

> > > > > > > Facebook, Twitter, Youtube have become vastly popular and

> > > > > > > so usenet readership is alas, down. =3D3DA0So the critics can

> > > > > > > rest easy.
> >
> > > > > > I have been reading that USENET is gaining new popularity
> > > > > > but was also informed of the reason for it recently. And
> > > > > > it's not because of these text-based newsgroups. So you
> > > > > > are correct

> > > > > Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and see where th=
> at
> > > > > gets me. =3DA0Maybe Usenet text groups will survive the way ham rad=
> io has
> > > > > survived. =3DA0I hope so, at least! =3DA0 This is the last bastion =

> of true
> > > > > intellectual freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-

> > > > > kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies and fatcat=

> s).
> >
> > > > Those people populate the social media as well but they
> > > > are quickly discovered and dealt with. And law
> > > > enforcement agencies continuously monitor Twitter,
> > > > Facebook, blogs, etc.
> >
> > > It is a difficult task as these technologies span national

> > > boundaries. =A0I am not sure how to deal with any libelous source

> > > operating from say the US, where Australians law do not apply.
> >
> > A lawyer that you may wish to consult should be able to
> > advise you about that.
> >
> > > > > > >> and also protect you from yourself!
> >
> > > > > > > Basically they are blackmailing bullies, out to get my
> > > > > > > works for less than nothing. They don't understand that I
> > > > > > > really want to give it away free, but they do not deserve
> > > > > > > same as they are unworhtly cowards and slimy abusive

> > > > > > > hypocrites. =3D3DA0So, I must go my own lonely way, to the tune

> > > > > > > of Tagore's jodi tore daak shune keu na aashe tobe ackla
> > > > > > > cholo re (if no one comes to your call, then go alone)
> >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > Many scientists and others have given away their work for
> > > > > > free, and the world is grateful to them for the gifts.
> >
> > > > > Yes, but science was not so institutionalised in those days.
> >
> > > > Valid point.
> >
> > > > > Those
> > > > > scientists who made the great discoveries were curious amateurs, as
> > > > > opposed to the grant-grabbing PhD professionals of our time. Thus

> > > > > paperwork is far more important than inspiration and initiative. No=
> t
> > > > > to upset the establishment in any way, is their Prime Directive - o=
> r
> > > > > else! =3DA0Such controls reduce the scientists to slaves under the =

> whips
> > > > > of the moneyed and empowered non-scientists, to the detriment of

> > > > > scientific advancement. =3DA0So the scientist of our time and of th=
> e
> > > > > future time has to become independently wealthy. =3DA0To get out of=
> their
> > > > > clutches. =3DA0Otherwise the present evils and inequalities, will f=
> orever
> > > > > continue. The resistance of the corrupt establishments everywhere t=
> o
> > > > > my new and very necessary concepts, the HTN and the IFE, convinces =
> me
> > > > > of this. =3DA0Anyone can see how the goons and perverts are out to =

> stick
> > > > > knives in my back, for all my pains to save humanity from their
> > > > > clutches!
> >
> > > > "Independently wealthy", yes, that's the ticket.
> >

> > > That should be the goal. =A0Not wealth for dissipation, but for

> > > independent research - that should be the goal of the scientist.
> > > Society should gear up to support such efforts.
> >
> > Scientist may need to motivate society to take action

> > in that direction. (Motivation =3D energy; action - force.)

> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
> >
> > > > > > And you know what, most among them did work independently
> > > > > > as innovators usually end up doing.
> >
> > > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > > Om Shanti
> >

> > > > > Of course. It is a lonely task, but no other work is more enjoyable=

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:

>
> Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and

> see where th= at gets me. Maybe Usenet text groups will

> survive the way ham radio has survived. I hope so, at

> least! This is the last bastion of true intellectual

> freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
> kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies

> and fatcats).

There are at least two news reports today about Internet
censorship. There goes "true intellectual freedom" down
the drain:

Google: Obama Administration Increases Requests for Content Removal
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Google-GovernmentRequests/2012/06/18/id/442626

Internet content censorship from India up 49 percent: Google
http://dailypioneer.com/home/online-channel/top-story/73916-internet-content-censorship-from-india-up-49-per-cent-google.html

New, freedom oriented mass-media must be found or invented.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 19, 6:37 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
>
>
> > Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and
> > see where th= at gets me. Maybe Usenet text groups will
> > survive the way ham radio has survived. I hope so, at
> > least! This is the last bastion of true intellectual
> > freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
> > kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies
> > and fatcats).
>
> There are at least two news reports today about Internet
> censorship. There goes "true intellectual freedom" down
> the drain:
>

> Google: Obama Administration Increases Requests for Content Removalhttp://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Google-GovernmentRequests/2012/06/18...
>
> Internet content censorship from India up 49 percent: Googlehttp://dailypioneer.com/home/online-channel/top-story/73916-internet-...

>
> New, freedom oriented mass-media must be found or invented.

Ruling elites always want to keep their privileges intact!

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 19, 2:38 am, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

<KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 4:21 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:22 pm, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"
> > <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ah! The long-suffering martyr,
>
> > No martyr bore his martrydom more comfortably than I, I must confess.
> > This is the most special blessing of the Great Goddess, I am sure. To
> > live healthily in a land like Australia in middle middle-class style,
> > is really something.
>
> Bollocks! A whole lot of righteous whinging that reeks of E.G.O.
>
>
>
> > the veritable Atlas carrying the world on
> >> his shoulder,
>
> > Thanks, quotay.  Force of habit, just.  When I joined the workforce
> > back in 1978 in BEL Ghaziabad, the top managers and even some
> > politcians were very keen - they impressed upon me that the work I was
> > doing was of great national significance, as lowlevel radar systems
> > would keep our neighbour quiet and so we could all live peacefully.
> > And that was just the beginning.
>
> And India bought radar systems from the West.

Also designed, developed and produced, with DRDO, LRDE and BEL. They
still carry the photo of the Indra radar antenna we developed, right
at the top of the BEL website.

Public sector was great for India. It was designed to create superior
human beings and worthy states, and that it did. The corrupt and lying
scums and thieving shits took over in due course, and that leads to
such squalor as we find in India today. I was so sorry to find what
the HEC colony near Ranchi where I grew up has now become, so
decrepit
and filthy with the so-called free market and lack of regulation
causing terrific pollution and ugliness all around.

A renewal of the public sector ideology, along with bottom-up private
initiative, is highly overdue not only in India but everywhere.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<05f893f0-e588-4139...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>

>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>> Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and

>>> see where th=3D at gets me. Maybe Usenet text groups will

>>> survive the way ham radio has survived. I hope so, at
>>> least! This is the last bastion of true intellectual
>>> freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
>>> kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies
>>> and fatcats).
>>
>> There are at least two news reports today about Internet
>> censorship. There goes "true intellectual freedom" down
>> the drain:
>>
>> Google: Obama Administration Increases Requests for Content Removal

>> http: www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Google-GovernmentRequests/2012/06/18...

>>
>> Internet content censorship from India up 49 percent: Google
>> http://dailypioneer.com/home/online-channel/top-story/73916-internet-...
>>
>> New, freedom oriented mass-media must be found or invented.
>>

>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>
> Ruling elites always want to keep their privileges
> intact!

Well it's about time we the people find a way of keeping
our priviledges in place. Are you familiar with EFF, the
Eloctronic Frontier Foundation? http://www.eff.org/

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Our time really is running out: Scientists put forward
theory suggesting that the universe could grind to a halt

By Tom Goodenough
Sunday, June 17, 2012

People often say that time speeds up as we age, but if
the latest scientific theory is true the opposite could
well be the case.

The radical theory by academics suggests that time itself
could be slowing down - and may eventually grind to a
halt altogether.

The latest mind-bending findings - put forward by
researchers working at two Spanish universities -
proposes that we have all been fooled into thinking the
universe is expanding.

Continues here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2160625/Our-time-really-running-Scientists-forward-theory-suggesting-universe-grind-halt.html?ITO=1490

-----

An ongoing discussion here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2896700/posts

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 19, 4:38 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Our time really is running out: Scientists put forward
> theory suggesting that the universe could grind to a halt
>
> By Tom Goodenough
> Sunday, June 17, 2012
>
> People often say that time speeds up as we age, but if
> the latest scientific theory is true the opposite could
> well be the case.
>
> The radical theory by academics suggests that time itself
> could be slowing down - and may eventually grind to a
> halt altogether.
>
> The latest mind-bending findings - put forward by
> researchers working at two Spanish universities -
> proposes that we have all been fooled into thinking the
> universe is expanding.

Time better come to a dead halt in Spain, as that will help their
economy as nothing else can.
>
> Continues here:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2160625/Our-time-reall...

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 19, 2:04 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article
> <05f893f0-e588-4139-a390-9ccdd16b0...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

No, I have no idea.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<e28a8bbd-44a1-44d8...@2g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
>> In article
>> <05f893f0-e588-4139-a390-9ccdd16b0...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>>
>>>> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>>
>>>>> Well, so I have to give the new technologies a try and

>>>>> see where th=3D3D at gets me. Maybe Usenet text groups will

>>>>> survive the way ham radio has survived. I hope so, at
>>>>> least! This is the last bastion of true intellectual
>>>>> freedom, still beyond the direct scope of the horta-
>>>>> kortas and hoamra-chomras (Bengali idioms for busybodies
>>>>> and fatcats).
>>
>>>> There are at least two news reports today about Internet
>>>> censorship. There goes "true intellectual freedom" down
>>>> the drain:
>>
>>>> Google: Obama Administration Increases Requests for Content Removal
>>>> http:www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Google-GovernmentRequests/2012/06/18...
>>
>>>> Internet content censorship from India up 49 percent: Google
>>>> http://dailypioneer.com/home/online-channel/top-story/73916-internet-...
>>
>>>> New, freedom oriented mass-media must be found or invented.
>>
>>>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>>>> Om Shanti
>>
>>> Ruling elites always want to keep their privileges
>>> intact!
>>
>> Well it's about time we the people find a way of keeping
>> our priviledges in place. Are you familiar with EFF, the
>> Eloctronic Frontier Foundation?http://www.eff.org/
>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>
> No, I have no idea.

This is from their "About" page:

http://www.eff.org/about

About EFF

From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are
transforming our society and empowering us as speakers,
citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in
the networked world come under attack, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense.
EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990謡ell
before the Internet was on most people's radar預nd
continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free
speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today.
From the beginning, EFF has championed the public
interest in every critical battle affecting digital
rights.

Blending the expertise of lawyers, policy analysts,
activists, and technologists, EFF achieves significant
victories on behalf of consumers and the general public.
EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing
and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the
US government or large corporations. By mobilizing more
than 140,000 concerned citizens through our Action
Center, EFF beats back bad legislation. In addition to
advising policymakers, EFF educates the press and public.

EFF is a donor-funded nonprofit and depends on your
support to continue successfully defending your digital
rights. Litigation is particularly expensive; because
two-thirds of our budget comes from individual donors,
every contribution is critical to helping EFF fight預nd
win洋ore cases.

Additional information:

Information on donating to EFF
Learn about significant EFF court victories
Learn more about EFF's founding

Annual Reports

EFF's Annual Reports are publicly-available:

2009-2010 Annual Report
2008-2009 Annual Report
2007 Annual Report
2006 Annual Report

More at:

About EFF - Electronic Frontier Foundation

http://www.eff.org/about

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jun 20, 7:52 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article

> <e28a8bbd-44a1-44d8-b6a6-96ac7b9d9...@2g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>,

> EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990�well
> before the Internet was on most people's radar�and

> continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free
> speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today.
> From the beginning, EFF has championed the public
> interest in every critical battle affecting digital
> rights.
>
> Blending the expertise of lawyers, policy analysts,
> activists, and technologists, EFF achieves significant
> victories on behalf of consumers and the general public.
> EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing
> and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the
> US government or large corporations. By mobilizing more
> than 140,000 concerned citizens through our Action
> Center, EFF beats back bad legislation. In addition to
> advising policymakers, EFF educates the press and public.
>
> EFF is a donor-funded nonprofit and depends on your
> support to continue successfully defending your digital
> rights. Litigation is particularly expensive; because
> two-thirds of our budget comes from individual donors,

> every contribution is critical to helping EFF fight�and
> win�more cases.

>
> Additional information:
>
> Information on donating to EFF
> Learn about significant EFF court victories
> Learn more about EFF's founding
>
> Annual Reports
>
> EFF's Annual Reports are publicly-available:
>
> 2009-2010 Annual Report
> 2008-2009 Annual Report
> 2007 Annual Report
> 2006 Annual Report
>
> More at:
>
> About EFF - Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
> http://www.eff.org/about
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi

> Om Shanti- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks, Jai. This is useful information.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

A project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The patent system is in crisis, and it endangers the
future of software development in the United States.
Let's create a system that defends innovation, instead of
hindering it.

https://defendinnovation.org/

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

I have received requests for a few changes in the
screenplay and I am rewriting a few lines.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 3, 12:21 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Wow! But I think my books will be available to the public before your
movie, Jai.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 3, 12:21 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<6c409fe1-c1f8-43da...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >

> > I have received requests for a few changes in the
> > screenplay and I am rewriting a few lines.
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>
> Wow! But I think my books will be available to the public before
> your movie, Jai.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

That's most welcome because your book will add to the
project's publicity.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

The following is excerpted from another thread:

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> . . . today we have lots of food and drink for 50+
> people, we are going to have a great party within few
> hours!

Great! Folks who socialize regularly are generally
healthier than those who don't. I just returned from a
hike with a group of people who are training for the next
Honolulu Marathon - http://www.honolulumarathon.org/

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 8, 10:09 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <6c409fe1-c1f8-43da-92a2-bd9c9b991...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Our group is mostly about dramatics, food, family values, fun, travel,
literature meaning mainly Tagore etc.
In physical activity we are not that hot. Some like my missus do
yoga, some go the gym, only a few are deep into sports and athletics.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In articlw
<d9188121-0c93-4b2e...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:

>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <6c409fe1-c1f8-43da-92a2-bd9c9b991...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
> >
> > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > > > > I have received requests for a few changes in the
> > > > > screenplay and I am rewriting a few lines.
> >
> > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > Om Shanti
> >

> > > > Wow! =A0But I think my books will be available to the public before

> > > > your movie, Jai.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > That's most welcome because your book will add to the
> > > project's publicity.
> >
> > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > Om Shanti
> >
> > The following is excerpted from another thread:
> >
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
> >
> >
> >
> > > . . . today we have lots of food and drink for 50+
> > > people, we are going to have a great party within few
> > > hours!
> >
> > Great! Folks who socialize regularly are generally
> > healthier than those who don't. I just returned from a
> > hike with a group of people who are training for the next
> > Honolulu Marathon -http://www.honolulumarathon.org/
> >

> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>

> Our group is mostly about dramatics, food, family values, fun, travel,
> literature meaning mainly Tagore etc.
> In physical activity we are not that hot. Some like my missus do
> yoga, some go the gym, only a few are deep into sports and athletics.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Speaking of exercise, Zumba is the big craze here among
men and women of all ages. And they dance to a lot of
modern Bollywood music in it.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

The following post appeared in another thread:

New book! The Son of Hiranyaksh - Ancient Tales of Valour about Gods and Demons

In article
<34e56a54-3865-4817...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Hello All!
> My first book - about ancient tales of mystery, romance, magic,
> valour... - is now available online for sale! Read it for great, racy
> fun! It is competitively priced, and very attractively packaged.
>
> Comments welcome. I will try to answer as best I can.
>
> For US readers:
> https://www.createspace.com/3861686
>
> For international readers:
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/147528599X
>
> For European readers:
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/147528599X
> http://www.amazon.de/dp/147528599X
> http://www.amazon.es/dp/147528599X
> http://www.amazon.fr/dp/147528599X
> http://www.amazon.it/dp/147528599X
>
> A kindle version is expected to be brought out shortly!
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Let me be the first to congratulate you on USENET!

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

A Flight Through the Universe

Astronomy Picture of the Day
NASA
Monday, August 13, 2012

Video Credit: M. A. Aragón (JHU), M. SubbaRao (Adler), A.
Szalay (JHU), Y. Yao (LBN, NERSC), and the SDSS-III
Collaboration

Explanation: What would it be like to fly through the
universe? Possibly the best simulated video of this yet
has been composed from recently-released galaxy data from
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Every spot in the above
video is a galaxy containing billions of stars. Many
galaxies are part of huge clusters, long filaments, or
small groups, while expansive voids nearly absent of
galaxies also exist. The movie starts by flying right
through a large nearby cluster of galaxies and later
circles the SDSS-captured universe at about 2 billion
light years (a redshift of about 0.15) from Earth.
Analyses of galaxy positions and movements continues to
bolster the case that our universe contains not only the
bright matter seen, like galaxies, but also a significant
amount of unseen dark matter and dark energy.

http://129.164.179.22/apod/ap120813.html

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Knowing your competition...

By author and playwright Ken La Salle

There’s an ironic exchange in the great film, My Dinner
with Andre, in which Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn talk
about the demise of theater. I say it’s ironic because
this movie was made more than 30 years ago and if they
thought live theater was in the crapper back then, well…
they had no idea what they were talking about!

Any playwright worth their salt is probably aware of a
theater that is going through hard times or one that shut
down because it couldn’t raise money. And yet, year after
year, I run into playwrights who act as though it has
nothing to do with them.

I believe they think they are somehow removed from the
economic reality of theater, which is simply not true. I
believe they do this because they simply do not
understand who their competition is, who they’re playing
against. It would be like an NBA player, LeBron James
let’s say, feeling he was doing a fine job if he could
beat the kids at the local elementary school.

Now, I’m not saying playwrights these days far too often
aim for the elementary school… It’s actually worse than
that! Because too many playwrights are writing for an
audience raised on George Bernard Shaw, Tennessee
Williams, Neil Simon, and even William Shakespeare. But
they’re not.

*Continues here:

http://www.indiesunlimited.com/2012/06/27/knowing-your-competition%e2%80%a6-by-ken-la-salle/

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Aug 14, 7:53 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Simulation is all they can do! Why not make Internal Force Engines,
that will transport us nicely through the solar system at least
with no use for stupid rockets? What are reason than all the top
physicists are corrupt to their cores, being einsteinian thugs!

Please stop the movie project, Jai, if indeed it was ever on. I don't
think a single usan will come to see it.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<89aaa178-d1d5-44d4...@hq10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>

> > A Flight Through the Universe
> >
> > Astronomy Picture of the Day
> > NASA
> > Monday, August 13, 2012
> >

> > Video Credit: M. A. Arag=F3n (JHU), M. SubbaRao (Adler), A.

> > Szalay (JHU), Y. Yao (LBN, NERSC), and the SDSS-III
> > Collaboration
> >
> > Explanation: What would it be like to fly through the
> > universe? Possibly the best simulated video of this yet
> > has been composed from recently-released galaxy data from
> > the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Every spot in the above
> > video is a galaxy containing billions of stars. Many
> > galaxies are part of huge clusters, long filaments, or
> > small groups, while expansive voids nearly absent of
> > galaxies also exist. The movie starts by flying right
> > through a large nearby cluster of galaxies and later
> > circles the SDSS-captured universe at about 2 billion
> > light years (a redshift of about 0.15) from Earth.
> > Analyses of galaxy positions and movements continues to
> > bolster the case that our universe contains not only the
> > bright matter seen, like galaxies, but also a significant
> > amount of unseen dark matter and dark energy.
> >
> > http://129.164.179.22/apod/ap120813.html
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>
> Simulation is all they can do! Why not make Internal Force Engines,
> that will transport us nicely through the solar system at least
> with no use for stupid rockets? What are reason than all the top
> physicists are corrupt to their cores, being einsteinian thugs!

The reason has to do more with satisfying their greed for
money and power than searching for the truth.

> Please stop the movie project, Jai, if indeed it was ever on. I don't
> think a single usan will come to see it.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

The movie is a Hollywood project. I wrote the screenplay
for a feature film and see no reason to pull it.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Percentage of films made by genre

http://i.imgur.com/sAbm3.png

No I am not going to disclose the genre of "Defend
Arindam" (working title) here on USENET just yet.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Got word last week that the first *production* meeting of
"Defend Arindam!" (working title) is in December this
year. Here we go!

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Oct 2, 9:27 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Got word last week that the first *production* meeting of
> "Defend Arindam!" (working title) is in December this
> year. Here we go!

Wow!

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

On Monday, October 1, 2012,
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

The following appeared in TOI nine years ago:

Indian researcher challenges Newton's law

PTI
The Times of India
June 4, 2003, 11.32 am IST

Kolkata - An Indian research technologist in Australia
has challenged Newton's First Law of Motion and called
for a revision of the classical theory in the light of
modern technology.

An alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, Arindam Banerjee, working for Telstra in
Melbourne, has contended in his recently published book
'To The Stars!' that contrary to the hitherto accepted
theory, an object can actually be moved without
application of any external force.

"Central to my new theory is the proposal that our
understanding of Newton's First Law of Motion should be
revised," the 47-year-old research technologist said.

Using his unconventional theory, Banerjee has described
in a technical paper, what he calls, a design for
'perpetual motion machines' which can generate energy
without burning any kind of fossil fuel or any
radioactive process.

The Internal Force Engine, which Banerjee has designed,
never runs out of power because it is 'self charging'
without the need for any external source of energy.

"It is a machine derived from energy internal to the body
and can achieve unlimited kinetic energy within a short
span of time, using much less energy obtained from
external sources like a battery," he said.

The balance energy generated thus is free and could be
produced indefinitely if a feedback loop is created in
the system, Banerjee contended.

The technologist has created an eletromagnetically moved
Internal Force Moved Body (IFMB) which demonstrates that
objects can be made to move from rest without friction,
without expelling mass at high speed (as in rockets) or
without any externally applied force, thus violating
Newton's First Law of Motion.

Through a series of complex cycles inside a hydraulic
system that channelise oppositely directed kinetic
energies inside it, Banerjee's highly technical IFMB
produces ever increasing velocity with each cycle with
'no upper limit' to the velocity that it can reach.

Though his theory is based on the assumption that our
present understanding of the Law of Conservation is
flawed, Banerjee added that certain new concepts arising
out of his own postulations would have to get firm
footing first.

"For instance, the concept of 'internal force', 'internal
force moved body' and 'velocity addition' as proposed in
the new theory would need innovations in the fields of
electromagnetic and hydraulic systems," he said.

Successful implementation of the concept, fortified with
designs and mathematical derivations, could mean a
gradual elimination of the conventional sources of energy
(fossil fuels) ensuring a pollution-free environment, the
technology expert said.

More at:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-06-04/india/27184878_1_new-theory-energy-conservation

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o o o

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely
not be read, considered or answered if it does not
contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal
addresses, and live-voice telephone number.

o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.