Working perpetual motion machine based upon permanent magnets validates Maxwellian electrodynamics and my experiments with internal force

[Arindam Banerjee]

This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy indefinitely.
It has over one million hits!
The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
And that with no energy input at all.
Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s

The best output from Pakistan - a motor that continuously generates energy
using magnets, following the Perendev simulation.

https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/31/perendev-style-magnetic-motor-free-energy-generator/

This shows that the laws of conservation of energy is wrong. Permanent magnets
do not lose their magnetism with use. They are replacing electromagnets in
modern and future motors. Thus electrical motors are getting smaller, more
reliable, and lighter.

The whole universe is a perpetual motion machine, always creating energy
which is getting destroyed.

Just as predicted by my equation for mass and energy
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)

So how long the deeply entrenched mediocrities will keep on
repeating the old lies and nonsenses relating to physics remains to be seen.
Let us hope for the best, that honest people do wake up and ask hard questions
following the observation of my video films.

Which will take us to the stars, and to the Moon and back within a day or so.

To get anywhere we need "free" linear energy, and that is the subject of my work.

How to move linearly with internal force from internal energy, as opposed to rotate.

Following are the videos, please see them carefully. They are an alternative
method of scientific expression. Instead of writing papers which will be
ignored by the powers that be, following is the evidence that everyone can
see and judge and repeat with minimal investment.

It must be the duty of every physics teacher to repeat these experiments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design

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

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


Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[benj]

On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
> simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy indefinitely.
> It has over one million hits!
> The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
> And that with no energy input at all.
> Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s

Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
story has been circulating around forever. I'd have to see the motor up
close and personal before I'm convinced.

As someone noted in the comments all these guys can build all these
fancy "Motors" and yet none can afford a decent camera or being
geniuses, they can't even figure out how to run the video camera they
already own.

> The best output from Pakistan - a motor that continuously generates energy
> using magnets, following the Perendev simulation.

> https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/31/perendev-style-magnetic-motor-free-energy-generator/

I love the computer simulations! But again calculating forces from
magnetic fields is tricky. So just WHERE is his power coming from? It's
all rather vague and suspicious. The whole thing is reminiscent of an
electomagnetic form of the epitaph of Stevinus.

> This shows that the laws of conservation of energy is wrong. Permanent magnets
> do not lose their magnetism with use. They are replacing electromagnets in
> modern and future motors. Thus electrical motors are getting smaller, more
> reliable, and lighter.

What you say is true but meaningless. Are these videos being made by
those companies that sell Neodymium magnets?

> The whole universe is a perpetual motion machine, always creating energy
> which is getting destroyed.

This is of course true, but you offer no examples of explanations. Just
saying that you do not believe in "heat death" of the universe only
says, well, you don't believe in it. So? Others do.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/4/2017 10:52 PM, benj wrote:
> On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
>> simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy
>> indefinitely.
>> It has over one million hits!
>> The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
>> And that with no energy input at all.
>> Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s
>
> Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
> story has been circulating around forever.

Yes of course! It's perpetual motion..

> .. I'd have to see the motor up

> close and personal before I'm convinced.

OK, but there's still an eternity of time for that. It runs forever!

--
Jos

[benj]

Don't think so. Laws of physics run forever, (or almost) while a shaft
in mechanical bearings isn't so "perpetual". I do understand that you
are just an "idea man", Jos. Perhaps a bit o'the wee "MagLev" is in
order.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/9/2017 12:51 AM, benj wrote:
> On 5/8/2017 2:37 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 5/4/2017 10:52 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
>>>> simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy
>>>> indefinitely.
>>>> It has over one million hits!
>>>> The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
>>>> And that with no energy input at all.
>>>> Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s
>>>
>>> Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
>>> story has been circulating around forever.
>>
>> Yes of course! It's perpetual motion..
>>
>>> .. I'd have to see the motor up
>>> close and personal before I'm convinced.
>>
>> OK, but there's still an eternity of time for that. It runs forever!
>
> Don't think so.

So you do not believe in tapping free energy from the vacuum?!

> I do understand that you
> are just an "idea man", Jos. Perhaps a bit o'the wee "MagLev" is in order.

You also doubt that the sum of all integers is -1/12, perhaps?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...>

--
Jos

[benj]

On 5/9/2017 2:37 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 5/9/2017 12:51 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 5/8/2017 2:37 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2017 10:52 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the
>>>>> Perendev
>>>>> simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy
>>>>> indefinitely.
>>>>> It has over one million hits!
>>>>> The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical
>>>>> energy.
>>>>> And that with no energy input at all.
>>>>> Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s
>>>>
>>>> Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
>>>> story has been circulating around forever.
>>>
>>> Yes of course! It's perpetual motion..
>>>
>>>> .. I'd have to see the motor up
>>>> close and personal before I'm convinced.
>>>
>>> OK, but there's still an eternity of time for that. It runs forever!
>>
>> Don't think so.
>
> So you do not believe in tapping free energy from the vacuum?!

Cripes, Jos, you can't tap energy from a "vacuum" you can only get free
energy by tapping the luminiferous aether.

>> I do understand that you
>> are just an "idea man", Jos. Perhaps a bit o'the wee "MagLev" is in
>> order.
>
> You also doubt that the sum of all integers is -1/12, perhaps?
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...>

Hmmm. I'm sure this makes mathematical sense...at least as much sense as
the square root of minus 1.

[Jos Bergervoet]

It is actually at the center of the vacuum energy mathematics:
the zero-point energy Ez = 1/2*hbar*omega for any oscillator in
QM. All standing wave modes in a box are described as oscillators
and higher frequency ones have higher Ez. The sum over all modes
is then the sum of increasing positive terms. It is the sum of the
integers if you use a toy model with only one dimension.

Of course no-one can really prove that the QM description is in
this respect correct (and the term is usually renormalized away).
And no-one knows whether the sum really runs to infinity (as
opposed to stopping at some maximum at the Planck scale). And
in any case, tapping energy from these ground state terms is as
silly as tapping energy from the Hydrogen atom's ground state
(the very meaning of ground state contradicts the whole idea).

But nevertheless, the sum has to be evaluated if you compute the
Casimir force from energy content in a finite volume and in that
case gives the correct results! If the high-frequency terms are
made to vanish in the haze, by some smooth cutoff, you still have
a very large positive outcome, but it is mostly cancelled by the
force from the volume on the other side of the wall. So then the
Casimir result is only coming from how the lower terms in the
series are changed by the precise shape of the volumes involved,
the higher terms cancelling on both sides and finally fading out
by the smooth cutoff (or even vanishing physically as the wall
becomes transparent for very hard radiation). The calculation
is then calculating a very small result from a difference in two
very large sums that are obtained in a seemingly sloppy way. (Of
course at small distances the Casimir result isn't very small!)

--
Jos

[benj]

How interesting that the Casimir result only comes from lower terms so
that the infinite sum of integers (which equals -1/12) doesn't have to
be considered. I've heard that if you arrange magnets in JUST the right
way, you can extract that "free" energy.

Obviously theory says that to build a useful perpetual motion machine
you must build it VERY small!

Personally I go with Tesla the ultimate authority for all kooks who said
that the universe is seething with great energy, but the only question
was whether or not any useful work could be extracted from it.
Whoda thunk it?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:52:25 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
> > simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy indefinitely.
> > It has over one million hits!
> > The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
> > And that with no energy input at all.
> > Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s
>
> Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
> story has been circulating around forever. I'd have to see the motor up
> close and personal before I'm convinced.

Good man. What you need to see is to see it go on till the bearings wear off.

> As someone noted in the comments all these guys can build all these
> fancy "Motors" and yet none can afford a decent camera or being
> geniuses, they can't even figure out how to run the video camera they
> already own.

Don't be snooty. Just because you first worlders can spend billions and
trillions of money on mind-boggling scientific voodoo to justify your e=mcc
nonsense, you need not be so arrogant about the poverty of thirdworlders.

I know how poor they are, for I was there for 33 years. Smart phones are about
all they got, with a laptop or two going around. Making the motor is not a
problem for them as they only need the magnets. Those magnets are expensive
but they managed to get them somehow. Your attitude is very dismissive; much
like the posh English-speaking elites we have in the thirdworld, who consider
their equally brown brethren to be sub-human, and so, unworthy of notice for
whatever they do, as they cannot even speak English properly.

In this case the test is as I said - check whether it continuously works or
not till the bearings break. I am willing to bet that such will be the case. My
source is ICEMS2013 in Busan where many papers were devoted to permanent
magnet motors. The consensus of opinion was that the magnetism does not
degrade with use - this is contrary to what we were taught in school. Apparently
permanent magnets lose their magnetism only with heat, not use, so if kept
properly cool they should work for ever.

> > The best output from Pakistan - a motor that continuously generates energy
> > using magnets, following the Perendev simulation.
>
> > https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/31/perendev-style-magnetic-motor-free-energy-generator/
>
> I love the computer simulations! But again calculating forces from
> magnetic fields is tricky. So just WHERE is his power coming from? It's
> all rather vague and suspicious. The whole thing is reminiscent of an
> electomagnetic form of the epitaph of Stevinus.

Just ask where the power from the Sun is coming from. Or the Earth. The answer
is gravitational forces which are always acting so as to generate energy.
Energy that is always getting created and destroyed in an unending process.
Similarly France gets its power from nuclear forces, using breeder reactors.
It is cyclic. So electrical forces can create energy. When you outgrow the
wrong energy conservation laws, through e=mcc in the dustbin of science where
it belongs, then the answers to fundamental questions become very simple.
Check out my video film IFE - 8 New Physics for more details.

>
> > This shows that the laws of conservation of energy is wrong. Permanent magnets
> > do not lose their magnetism with use. They are replacing electromagnets in
> > modern and future motors. Thus electrical motors are getting smaller, more
> > reliable, and lighter.
>
> What you say is true but meaningless. Are these videos being made by
> those companies that sell Neodymium magnets?

Why meaningless? They have the utmost meaning. Permanent magnets have
completely revolutionised our existences, with very superior machines that will
never wear out (magnetic gears are a rage these days). The magnet companies
already have a huge market with conventional motors. The Pakistani motors are
for use in areas where there is no power from the grid. So one can use this
for pumping water in or out of some well or field. Not much money to be made
here for the firstworld, right, but very useful for the thirdworlders.

>
>
> > The whole universe is a perpetual motion machine, always creating energy
> > which is getting destroyed.
>
> This is of course true, but you offer no examples of explanations. Just
> saying that you do not believe in "heat death" of the universe only
> says, well, you don't believe in it. So? Others do.

The Sun and Earth are great examples of continuous energy generation. Radiant
energy from the Sun and the Earth spreads out over the infinite universe and
becomes zero at infinity. Of course, with this thinking, the universe can
have no beginning nor end. Time stretches back indefinitely, as space stretches
out indefinitely. Hubble indicates the latter.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/13/2017 3:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:52:25 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
>>> simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy indefinitely.
>>> It has over one million hits!
>>> The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
>>> And that with no energy input at all.
>>> Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s
>>
>> Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
>> story has been circulating around forever. I'd have to see the motor up
>> close and personal before I'm convinced.
>
> Good man. What you need to see is to see it go on till the bearings wear off.

Benj is a very short-sighted mainstream science defender..

>> As someone noted in the comments all these guys can build all these
>> fancy "Motors" and yet none can afford a decent camera or being
>> geniuses, they can't even figure out how to run the video camera they
>> already own.
>
> Don't be snooty. Just because you first worlders can spend billions and

Yes, he's very snooty all the time here. He's a denier of all
new inventions with his Jefimenko religion his only argument!

> trillions of money on mind-boggling scientific voodoo to justify your e=mcc
> nonsense,

Benj really believes in that nonsense.. It's his blind faith in
mathematics.

> you need not be so arrogant about the poverty of thirdworlders.

Besides, they are extremely rich spiritually of course, aren't they?

> I know how poor they are, for I was there for 33 years. Smart phones are about
> all they got,

For 33 years? We don't have them that long yet. (Just shows that
they are cleverer!)

> with a laptop or two going around. Making the motor is not a
> problem for them as they only need the magnets. Those magnets are expensive
> but they managed to get them somehow.

Somehow managing to get expensive things can be very handy! It's
good to hear they have a way to get that, ehh.. done!

> Your attitude is very dismissive; much

Let's skip all this. It's a conspiracy of conventional science!

...
...

> The Sun and Earth are great examples of continuous energy generation.

Very good examples.

> Radiant
> energy from the Sun and the Earth spreads out over the infinite universe and
> becomes zero at infinity.

You've been there to check that, no doubt. So we believe you!

> Of course, with this thinking, the universe can
> have no beginning nor end.

Perfect proof, but benj thinks there was a big bang..

> Time stretches back indefinitely, as space stretches
> out indefinitely. Hubble indicates the latter.

But Edwin was from Missouri! Not a thirdworlder.. Can we
trust him? (Or does Missouri also count?)

--
Jos

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:36:00 AM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 5/13/2017 3:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:52:25 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
> >>> simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy indefinitely.
> >>> It has over one million hits!
> >>> The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
> >>> And that with no energy input at all.
> >>> Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s
> >>
> >> Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
> >> story has been circulating around forever. I'd have to see the motor up
> >> close and personal before I'm convinced.
> >
> > Good man. What you need to see is to see it go on till the bearings wear off.
>
> Benj is a very short-sighted mainstream science defender..

Does that mean that he and other very short-sighted mainstream science
defenders will not believe in ppms even when the bearings fall off with use
after entire Holland-type areas are cleared of water by ppms running pumps and
of course with no input energy at all?

>
> >> As someone noted in the comments all these guys can build all these
> >> fancy "Motors" and yet none can afford a decent camera or being
> >> geniuses, they can't even figure out how to run the video camera they
> >> already own.
> >
> > Don't be snooty. Just because you first worlders can spend billions and
>
> Yes, he's very snooty all the time here. He's a denier of all
> new inventions with his Jefimenko religion his only argument!
>
> > trillions of money on mind-boggling scientific voodoo to justify your e=mcc
> > nonsense,
>
> Benj really believes in that nonsense.. It's his blind faith in
> mathematics.

...others and his blind faith in the abuse of mathematics following wrong
assumptions.

> > you need not be so arrogant about the poverty of thirdworlders.
>
> Besides, they are extremely rich spiritually of course, aren't they?

Which helps some to understand the physical and emotional world better at times;
Divine Blessing in action works like that.

> > I know how poor they are, for I was there for 33 years. Smart phones are about
> > all they got,
>
> For 33 years? We don't have them that long yet. (Just shows that
> they are cleverer!)

I meant that I lived in the thirdworld for 33 years, and these days the ordinary
people have smartphones for doing scientific work. I don't have a smartphone,
but make do with a number of cameras among other things for making video films.

>
> > with a laptop or two going around. Making the motor is not a
> > problem for them as they only need the magnets. Those magnets are expensive
> > but they managed to get them somehow.
>
> Somehow managing to get expensive things can be very handy! It's

> good to hear they have a way to get that, ehh.. done!the

They did get the magnets and the rest was mechanical engineering at a do-able
level. The big idea is that they managed to run heater coils, make lamps glow,
etc. with no input energy of any kind; only permanent magnets were involved,
and now it has to be seen whether their magnetism runs down with use, or not.
Looks to me that such won't be the case - for if the magnets did run down there
would be no point in their making their video film.

>
> > Your attitude is very dismissive; much
>
> Let's skip all this. It's a conspiracy of conventional science!

That and pig-headedness.

>
> ...
> ...
> > The Sun and Earth are great examples of continuous energy generation.
>
> Very good examples.
>
> > Radiant
> > energy from the Sun and the Earth spreads out over the infinite universe and
> > becomes zero at infinity.
>
> You've been there to check that, no doubt. So we believe you!

Hubble telescope results agree with me. The age and size of the universe as
per conventional science increases with the power of telescopes, so my
theory has validity. Bigger the telescope, larger the known universe. An
infinitely large telescope will show us an infinitely large universe.
My good luck is that conventional scientists cannot burn me at the stake as
they did to Bruno who said the same thing.

>
> > Of course, with this thinking, the universe can
> > have no beginning nor end.
>
> Perfect proof, but benj thinks there was a big bang..

Ah, but he is an e=mcc wallah and they are all wrong. They need low sitcoms
for survival.

>
> > Time stretches back indefinitely, as space stretches
> > out indefinitely. Hubble indicates the latter.
>
> But Edwin was from Missouri! Not a thirdworlder.. Can we
> trust him? (Or does Missouri also count?)

Hubble did not show the outer limits of our spacetime-twisted universe but
showed that it went on and on, with more and more galaxies further and
further away. What Edwin has to do with this I do not know.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> --
> Jos

[szczepan bialek]

"benj" <be...@nobody.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:59124282$0$58351$b1db1813$19ac...@news.astraweb.com...

>>>
>> So you do not believe in tapping free energy from the vacuum?!
>
> Cripes, Jos, you can't tap energy from a "vacuum" you can only get free
> energy by tapping the luminiferous aether.

The only "free energy" in the space is in the form of the radiation.
S*

[szczepan bialek]

"benj" <be...@nobody.net> napisał w wiadomości

news:59138522$0$60318$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com...

> >
> Personally I go with Tesla the ultimate authority for all kooks who said
> that the universe is seething with great energy, but the only question was
> whether or not any useful work could be extracted from it.
> Whoda thunk it?

Everybody can have the useful work from the radiation.
In the universe is a lot of the radiation.
S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

It seems clear to me, that the primary province of the physicist must be FORCE
and not ENERGY. As soon as we start talking about ENERGY the scientists get
into the murky waters of BUSINESS. And money, politics, ego, etc.

Thus the Pakistani PMM based upon magnets is about rotational energy generation
by magnets which gets converted into electrical energy, freely, and that
electrical energy is destroyed by various useful devices such as heaters, pumps,
fans, etc.

That is all nice, but it is about BUSINESS etc.

The force is the thing - the magnets are generating unending FORCE as long
as they are not disturbed by heat and accident. Thus, force is always there,
it has always existed and will exist. The proper use of force leads to the
creation and destruction of energy. When we are wise, we will use the
destruction process of energy creatively for good. When not wise, the otherwise.

So my task is to use electrical energy to break linear inertia. Electrical
energy is always used to break rotational inertia - every motor works like that.
But a rotational motor stays put, goes nowhere. The task now is to use internal
force to provide unending linear acceleration.

It is to this end, that the discovery of the new physics effect, that the
Lorenz force does not have an opposite reaction, is of the utmost importance.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[benj]

On 5/13/2017 12:35 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 5/13/2017 3:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:52:25 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2017 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> This video shows how a perpetual motion machine based upon the Perendev
>>>> simulation involving angled permanent magnets can create energy
>>>> indefinitely.
>>>> It has over one million hits!
>>>> The Perendev motor drives a generator which produces electrical energy.
>>>> And that with no energy input at all.
>>>> Well, this is energy from rotation, rotational energy.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=8s
>>>
>>> Sorry. but I'm skeptical of any permanent magnets producing power. This
>>> story has been circulating around forever. I'd have to see the motor up
>>> close and personal before I'm convinced.
>>
>> Good man. What you need to see is to see it go on till the bearings
>> wear off.
>
> Benj is a very short-sighted mainstream science defender..

Jos, doesn't do experimental physics. For him bearings last only as long
as he imagines they last.

>>> As someone noted in the comments all these guys can build all these
>>> fancy "Motors" and yet none can afford a decent camera or being
>>> geniuses, they can't even figure out how to run the video camera they
>>> already own.
>>
>> Don't be snooty. Just because you first worlders can spend billions and
>
> Yes, he's very snooty all the time here. He's a denier of all
> new inventions with his Jefimenko religion his only argument!

Hey, Jos, equations don't lie. That even fits YOUR religion. Of course
to see that, one would first have to actually LOOK at them.

>> trillions of money on mind-boggling scientific voodoo to justify your
>> e=mcc
>> nonsense,
>
> Benj really believes in that nonsense.. It's his blind faith in
> mathematics.

Hey, Jefimenko derives e=mcc right from Maxwell! Doesn't get more
classic than that! Blind Faith in mathematics is fine. But blind faith
in reality is much harder to justify.

>> you need not be so arrogant about the poverty of thirdworlders.
>
> Besides, they are extremely rich spiritually of course, aren't they?
>
>> I know how poor they are, for I was there for 33 years. Smart phones
>> are about
>> all they got,
>
> For 33 years? We don't have them that long yet. (Just shows that
> they are cleverer!)
>
>> with a laptop or two going around. Making the motor is not a
>> problem for them as they only need the magnets. Those magnets are
>> expensive
>> but they managed to get them somehow.
>
> Somehow managing to get expensive things can be very handy! It's
> good to hear they have a way to get that, ehh.. done!

:-)

>> Your attitude is very dismissive; much
>
> Let's skip all this. It's a conspiracy of conventional science!
>
> ...
> ...
>> The Sun and Earth are great examples of continuous energy generation.
>
> Very good examples.
>
>> Radiant
>> energy from the Sun and the Earth spreads out over the infinite
>> universe and
>> becomes zero at infinity.
>
> You've been there to check that, no doubt. So we believe you!

Nonsense he hasn't been there. Jefimenko told me that there is no
infinity. Even more to the point Einstein said that there is only one
thing known for sure to be infinite. He may have been THERE. Ohhh. That
was a bit snooty, wasn't it?

>> Of course, with this thinking, the universe can
>> have no beginning nor end.
>
> Perfect proof, but benj thinks there was a big bang..

Quit trying to jerk my chain, Jos. You know perfectly well of my BBB
theory! (big bang is bull....)

>> Time stretches back indefinitely, as space stretches
>> out indefinitely. Hubble indicates the latter.

> But Edwin was from Missouri! Not a thirdworlder.. Can we
> trust him? (Or does Missouri also count?)

in Missouri they say "show me". Anyway Einstein already covered the
"infinite past" Issue.

[benj]

On 5/15/2017 11:53 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:
> "benj" <be...@nobody.net> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci

This is correct, S*.

However, the question here is just how one uses spinning magnets to
receive energy from universal radiation? This is clearly some kind of
"new physics" as the saying goes.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Thanks, looks like at last mainstream science is going the way I have shown
in IFE - 8. It will pay to look at the first seven videos, too.

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

My take on the spinning magnets is that force and energy are two entirely
different things. Force is fundamental. Energy is constructed. The notion of
energy is also a construct. And a very slippery one. The malevolent powers that
be want it to remain so, for that ensue the continuation of the status quo.

In other words the law of conservation of energy is a rumour that is universally
accepted. Everything in Nature points to the obvious fact that energy is always
getting created and destroyed.

The main point here to realise is that permanent magnets do not lose any part of
their field strength even when that field strength has been used to generate
energy.

This is the fundamental fact, and proved by the Pakistanis unless they are
lying or joking. Which does not seem to be the case, for dozens of people
have repeated their experiments. Their simulation video has got over 1m views,
much much more than mine. (sob-sob)

Just as, the Earth's gravity does not decrease, even though it is used to
make energy in so many ways.

It is difficult to throw out say 90% of modern physics and say 30% of
classical physics, but the gains will be so extraordinary it will be more than
worth it.

check out IFE - 7 about anti-gravity. Plenty of work to be done in physics,
when we concentrate upon FORCE as opposed to the limitations imposed by
wrong notions of energy.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:5af0dd95-d9f2-4fb6...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:59:15 AM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> The force is the thing - the magnets are generating unending FORCE as long
> as they are not disturbed by heat and accident. Thus, force is always
> there,
> it has always existed and will exist.

Not true.
"Magnet alloy is magnetized with a sufficiently intense magnetic field that
is established in the same direction as the magnet's orientation. When a
magnetized magnet is exposed to a strong magnetic field that is established
in opposition to the magnet's magnetization, part of the magnet may be
demagnetized. "

So the magnets are generating unending FORCE but the force is decreasing
with the time.
S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

Practical motors with permanent magnets completely replacing the earlier
electromagnets are the hard facts that pseudo-theories cannot overcome.

The magnetism of the permanent magnets in the permanent magnet motors does not
decrease. They last for ever, provided they are not damaged or subject to too
much heat.

To deny this, means denying the billions of dollars being spent on permanent
magnet motors.

Please realise, your thinking is completely outdated in the modern situation
where permanent magnets (working in opposition to magnetic fields and making
motors move) have already replaced electromagnets in innumerable motors.

The Pakistani situation is making two sets of permanent magnets (in stator and
rotor) generate unlimited energy using the Perendev simulation.

Usually in practical motors there is one set of permanent magnets (either in
rotor or stator).

It is not known if the Pakistani generator will work continuously generating
the same energy indefinitely. It looks like it will do so but we have no data
on that.

I think that it will work indefinitely, for either set of magnets (in stator
or rotor) has no means of knowing whether the magnetism from the other side
arises from electromagnets, or not.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[szczepan bialek]

Użytkownik "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w
wiadomości news:87bc2dd1-d408-4ba5...@googlegroups.com...

<The permanent magnets are like springs. They properly work at alternating
load.
<But load in one direction cause demagnetization.

To deny this, means denying the billions of dollars being spent on permanent
magnet motors.

Please realise, your thinking is completely outdated in the modern situation
where permanent magnets (working in opposition to magnetic fields and making
motors move) have already replaced electromagnets in innumerable motors.

The Pakistani situation is making two sets of permanent magnets (in stator
and
rotor) generate unlimited energy using the Perendev simulation.

Usually in practical motors there is one set of permanent magnets (either in
rotor or stator).

It is not known if the Pakistani generator will work continuously generating
the same energy indefinitely. It looks like it will do so but we have no
data
on that.

<Magnetization is gaining of energy.
<After some time no magnetization and no energy generating.

I think that it will work indefinitely, for either set of magnets (in stator
or rotor) has no means of knowing whether the magnetism from the other side
arises from electromagnets, or not.

<This subjects are described here:
"With an earlier magnet material like Alnico, you couldn't use a thin disc
shape like we can with neodymium magnets. It would quickly demagnetize
itself.

The use of a steel keeper on a horseshoe magnet is another step in improving
this kind of performance. It helps the magnet not demagnetize itself even
more than without the keeper." From:

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=why-horseshoes

<The keeper eliminates the continuous load.

S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

I don't know. As far as the textbooks go permanent magnets are permanent
because the small electrical currents within the magnets are polarised in one
direction permanently. To get rid of the polarisation heat or mechanical
vibration is required. As such without heat or mechanical vibration the
elements in the permanent magnet should not get affected. So the external fields
should be a non-issue. Whether they are alternating, or steady, is of no
relevance.

In any case, to test the machine it has to work continuously without loss of
energy. That is once started it has to generate the same x watts for the same
situation within the motor (same temperature and vibration levels).

It could be that because of high temperature and vibration the magnetism
loses out.

These experiments should be carefully done, and the data published, by a
multi-national team. Very basic issues are under consideration, that is why.

>
> To deny this, means denying the billions of dollars being spent on permanent
> magnet motors.
>
> Please realise, your thinking is completely outdated in the modern situation
> where permanent magnets (working in opposition to magnetic fields and making
> motors move) have already replaced electromagnets in innumerable motors.
>
> The Pakistani situation is making two sets of permanent magnets (in stator
> and
> rotor) generate unlimited energy using the Perendev simulation.
>
> Usually in practical motors there is one set of permanent magnets (either in
> rotor or stator).
>
> It is not known if the Pakistani generator will work continuously generating
> the same energy indefinitely. It looks like it will do so but we have no
> data
> on that.
>
> <Magnetization is gaining of energy.
> <After some time no magnetization and no energy generating.

No, I cannot agree going by the textbooks and practical experiments.
Magnetisation is the alignment of the mini-magnets (small electric current
loops) in the magnetic material.
While energy is required for this alignment, no doubt, that energy does not
equal to the energy-capacity given to the material, which gains immensely in
force (and thus energy from drawing capacity).
The gain in energy from magnetisation, is much greater than the energy spent
in magnetisation. This is a very fundamental fact.

> I think that it will work indefinitely, for either set of magnets (in stator
> or rotor) has no means of knowing whether the magnetism from the other side
> arises from electromagnets, or not.
>
> <This subjects are described here:
> "With an earlier magnet material like Alnico, you couldn't use a thin disc
> shape like we can with neodymium magnets. It would quickly demagnetize
> itself.

Demagnetisation relates to a number of issues, such as heat and vibration.
When these issues are overcome (with cooling and better mechanical engineering)
the strength of the magnet remains constant.

> The use of a steel keeper on a horseshoe magnet is another step in improving
> this kind of performance. It helps the magnet not demagnetize itself even
> more than without the keeper." From:
>
> https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=why-horseshoes
>
> <The keeper eliminates the continuous load.

True the magnet works well as long as the fields are strong. In air the
fields are weak, and interaction with ions will create vibration in the
material leading to demagnetisaction.

The point is that can the Perendev simulation be done with electromagnets
instead of permanent magnets. This point is what I would like to raise!

If there is more energy gained from the generator than what is used to keep
the electromagnets working then will you agree that the law of conservation
of energy is violated?

The problem here is that the electromagnets will be bulky and thus make a
less efficient motor...

I think this is an interesting topic, hopefully people will make the
Perendev simulation with small, light and powerful electromagnets and then the
case will rest one way or the other.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:13:33 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:

> Użytkownik "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w
> wiadomości news:87bc2dd1-d408-4ba5...@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 6:22:19 PM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> > "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> > news:5af0dd95-d9f2-4fb6...@googlegroups.com...
> > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:59:15 AM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >
> > > The force is the thing - the magnets are generating unending FORCE as
> > > long
> > > as they are not disturbed by heat and accident. Thus, force is always
> > > there,
> > > it has always existed and will exist.
> >
> > Not true.
> > "Magnet alloy is magnetized with a sufficiently intense magnetic field
> > that
> > is established in the same direction as the magnet's orientation. When a
> > magnetized magnet is exposed to a strong magnetic field that is
> > established
> > in opposition to the magnet's magnetization, part of the magnet may be
> > demagnetized. "
> >
> > So the magnets are generating unending FORCE but the force is decreasing
> > with the time.
> > S*

In the Perendev simulation the magnets are getting attracted and repulsed, so
the fields are changing. This is happening alternately. The attraction is more
than the repulsion, going by the simulation profile geometry.

Demagnetisation has to do with the physical disorientation of the
current carrying elements in the magnet. What you wrote above could be
dealing with that.

True a purely repulsive field will decrease the number of lines within or the
field strength of the magnet, and that could disorient the magnetic sub-formations given further heat and vibrations.

So long as the magnetic field strength does not decay, the force the magnet
can exert remains constant. And thus the energy that can be created with
the magnetic fields.

From what I have heard from the practical engineers, the magnetism of the
magnets actually becomes slightly stronger, and not degrades, when the motors
using pm are working which is because the field strength is high when it is
working and thus the orientation is stronger.

In other words drawing energy from the magnetic force in the permanent magnets
is not a degrading process.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[J.B. Wood]

On 05/31/2017 05:31 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Hello, and wow, this seemingly interminable thread is like trying to
figure out Russian influence on U.S. elections. (Reminds me of all
those replies to Archimedes Plutonium's posts some years back.)

To the OP: I'll tell ya what. Build your perpetual motion machine, demo
it in front of a crowd of skeptics and then we'll establish the
theoretical basis on which it performs. And your machine has to be able
to perform work perpetually with no energy inputs. As an aside, one of
the IMHO unsung heroes of radio innovation in the U.S. is Edwin
Armstrong, who, while at RCA, crafted an apparatus demonstrating that FM
is indeed practical despite the theorists of the day who could "prove"
that it wasn't possible to convey info in this manner. (That success
resulted in end of the Sarnoff-Armstrong friendship - but that's another
story.) Sincerely,
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com

[Arindam Banerjee]

Fair enough. My interest is not with this work done already, but in new things
mentioned in other threads in this ng. This pmm is something rotational, while
my proposed motor takes you to places.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

news:2d085121-f537-439b...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:10:33 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 5/15/2017 11:53 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:
> >
> > Everybody can have the useful work from the radiation.
> > In the universe is a lot of the radiation.
> > S*
> >
> This is correct, S*.
>

The main point here to realise is that permanent magnets do not lose any
part of
their field strength even when that field strength has been used to generate
energy.

This is the fundamental fact, and proved by the Pakistanis unless they are
lying or joking. Which does not seem to be the case, for dozens of people
have repeated their experiments. Their simulation video has got over 1m
views,
much much more than mine. (sob-sob)

Just as, the Earth's gravity does not decrease, even though it is used to
make energy in so many ways.

<In XIX century was discovered that gravity is the result of longitudinal
waves.
<Now you can use the optical or supersonic twizers.
< So the Earth gravity is temperature dependent.

It is difficult to throw out say 90% of modern physics and say 30% of
classical physics, but the gains will be so extraordinary it will be more
than
worth it.

<The classical physics was finished in the XIX century and is 100% right.
S*

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

news:985cb77c-9abc-4a77...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:13:33 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> > >
> > So the magnets are generating unending FORCE but the force is decreasing
> > with the time.
> > S*

From what I have heard from the practical engineers, the magnetism of the
magnets actually becomes slightly stronger, and not degrades, when the
motors
using pm are working which is because the field strength is high when it is
working and thus the orientation is stronger.

< the motors using pm are not the Perendev motor.
< We must wait to time when the practical engineers start with producing
Perendev motors.

In other words drawing energy from the magnetic force in the permanent
magnets
is not a degrading process.

<We must wait.
< I am sure that drawing energy from the magnetic force in the permanent
magnets
IS a degrading process.
S*

[benj]

On 6/1/2017 12:32 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci

> news:985cb77c-9abc-4a77...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:13:33 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
>>>>
>>> So the magnets are generating unending FORCE but the force is decreasing
>>> with the time.
>>> S*
>
> From what I have heard from the practical engineers, the magnetism of the
> magnets actually becomes slightly stronger, and not degrades, when the
> motors
> using pm are working which is because the field strength is high when it is
> working and thus the orientation is stronger.
>
> < the motors using pm are not the Perendev motor.
> < We must wait to time when the practical engineers start with producing
> Perendev motors.
>
> In other words drawing energy from the magnetic force in the permanent
> magnets
> is not a degrading process.

Look S*, this is simple Third World classical physics. It's so simple.
You start with a FORCE! Take two like magnet poles. They REPEL with a
force! In any motor the power output is because a FORCE is applied to
the mechanism. This force can be magnetic, or gravity or any other force
that does not deteriorate with time! Does gravity get weaker because
things are falling? No it does not. Do magnets repelling make the
magnets get weaker? No it does not!

The bottom line is there is LIMITLESS force (and hence energy) available
from any magnet if you can just find the right configuration that will
constantly extract that force and turn it into useful energy such as
shaft rotation!

THAT is how simple the physics of all this is!

[Arindam Banerjee]

Well, s* has got a point about loss of magnetisation from repulsion. It is
not the field that is causing the loss, but other factors whose effects will
become stronger as the field strength is weakened by repulsion. When there
is attraction and repulsion - the way all motors work - among the magnets there
is no loss of magnetisation.

Yes it is very simple isn't it. Please check out IFE - 8 for a historical
and futuristic look at electrodynamics.

[szczepan bialek]

"benj" <be...@nobody.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:593088e9$0$51826$c3e8da3$f626...@news.astraweb.com...

> On 6/1/2017 12:32 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:

>> "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

>> news:985cb77c-9abc-4a77...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:13:33 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> So the magnets are generating unending FORCE but the force is
>>>> decreasing
>>>> with the time.
>>>> S*
>>
>> From what I have heard from the practical engineers, the magnetism of the
>> magnets actually becomes slightly stronger, and not degrades, when the
>> motors
>> using pm are working which is because the field strength is high when it
>> is
>> working and thus the orientation is stronger.
>>
>> < the motors using pm are not the Perendev motor.
>> < We must wait to time when the practical engineers start with producing
>> Perendev motors.
>>
>> In other words drawing energy from the magnetic force in the permanent
>> magnets
>> is not a degrading process.
>
> Look S*, this is simple Third World classical physics. It's so simple. You
> start with a FORCE! Take two like magnet poles. They REPEL with a force!

They repel if you use the force to contact them.
The same is with a spring.

< In any motor the power output is because a FORCE is applied to
> the mechanism. This force can be magnetic, or gravity or any other force
> that does not deteriorate with time! Does gravity get weaker because
> things are falling? No it does not. Do magnets repelling make the magnets
> get weaker? No it does not!
>
> The bottom line is there is LIMITLESS force (and hence energy) available
> from any magnet if you can just find the right configuration that will
> constantly extract that force and turn it into useful energy such as shaft
> rotation!

To have force you must use force to change the distance.
The energy bilans is zero.

>
> THAT is how simple the physics of all this is!

Yes.
S*
>

[Arindam Banerjee]

The spring force is mechanical. Magnetic force is different.

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

news:ea3bf796-6fb0-4c3e...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 5:46:26 PM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> >
> They repel if you use the force to contact them.
> The same is with a spring.

The spring force is mechanical. Magnetic force is different.

<Magnetic force, Electrostatic force, Gravity force.
<All of them are in the space. Are they different?
S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

All of them are in the aether.
They have different origins.
There is another force around apart from nuclear forces - the induced
electromagnetic force discovered by Sir J J Thomson and elaborated upon by
Oliver Heaviside, the so-called Lorenz force
All these forces are well discussed in classical textbooks like Halliday and
Resnick.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

news:85cd7980-25c2-4331...@googlegroups.com...

<The textbooks and O. Heaviside is for children.
<The aether was explained by Faraday and Maxwell.
<They dismis the mystery aether and substituded it with the particles. Now
it is the rare plasma.
< Faraday wrote in 1846:
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfarad1846.html

< In 1861 Maxwell wrote:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

Faraday and Maxwell were the giant scientists. O. Heaviside was an
engineer.. He wrote:
"I remember my first look at the great treatise of Maxwell's when I was a
young man. I saw that it was great, greater and greatest, with prodigious
possibilities in its power. I was determined to master the book and set to
work. I was very ignorant. I had no knowledge of mathematical analysis
(having learned only school algebra and trigonometry which I had largely
forgotten) and thus my work was laid out for me. It took me several years
before I could understand as much as I possibly could. Then I set Maxwell
aside and followed my own course. And I progressed much more quickly. It
will be understood that I preach the gospel according to my interpretation
of Maxwell.[8]"

<It is very difficult to understand the papers wrote by Genius.
<It is easy to " follow my own course". The all autors of texbooks "follow
their own course".
<Are you able to understand the oryginal papers wrote by Ampere, Faraday,
Henry, Stokes, L. Lorenz, Michelson, E. Thomson, Tesla and Dirac?
S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 9:07:30 PM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:85cd7980-25c2-4331...@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 2:00:26 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> > > > >
> > > They repel if you use the force to contact them.
> > > The same is with a spring.
> >
> > The spring force is mechanical. Magnetic force is different.
> >
> > <Magnetic force, Electrostatic force, Gravity force.
> > <All of them are in the space. Are they different?
> > S*
>
> All of them are in the aether.
> They have different origins.
> There is another force around apart from nuclear forces - the induced
> electromagnetic force discovered by Sir J J Thomson and elaborated upon by
> Oliver Heaviside, the so-called Lorenz force
> All these forces are well discussed in classical textbooks like Halliday and
> Resnick.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
> <The textbooks and O. Heaviside is for children.

Very well! I am then a child, and let us see how much that helps me to make a
new motor that will validate the physics of children.

> <The aether was explained by Faraday and Maxwell.

Maxwell needed the aether as he found out the speed of light by assuming
that radiation was wave motion. As wave motion needs a medium, radiation if
wave motion has to have a medium for propagation. And that medium is aether.

> <They dismis the mystery aether and substituded it with the particles. Now
> it is the rare plasma.

With no proof at all, this is not science but pseudo-science. It has no
predictive quality, this mere assertion. You cannot make motors with this, nor
design antennas, nor form their radiation patterns.

> < Faraday wrote in 1846:
> https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfarad1846.html
>
> < In 1861 Maxwell wrote:
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
>
> Faraday and Maxwell were the giant scientists. O. Heaviside was an
> engineer.. He wrote:
> "I remember my first look at the great treatise of Maxwell's when I was a
> young man. I saw that it was great, greater and greatest, with prodigious
> possibilities in its power. I was determined to master the book and set to
> work. I was very ignorant. I had no knowledge of mathematical analysis
> (having learned only school algebra and trigonometry which I had largely
> forgotten) and thus my work was laid out for me. It took me several years
> before I could understand as much as I possibly could. Then I set Maxwell
> aside and followed my own course. And I progressed much more quickly. It
> will be understood that I preach the gospel according to my interpretation
> of Maxwell.[8]"

Quite, Heaviside used the vector algebra to simplify the mathematics of
Maxwell, and he also corrected Sir J J Thomson's equation to form the
equation for the Lorenz force, namely F=BiL and gave it vector form. His usage
of vector formulation is now fundamental to electrodynamics.

>
> <It is very difficult to understand the papers wrote by Genius.

They are inferior in quality if they are difficult to understand. True genius
always shines out in simplicity and sincerity. But it takes minds of a high
order to understand the quality of such simplicity and sincerity. The humbugs
and frauds make simple things difficult, with much manipulation, to make it
appear that they are genius. Ever heard of the expression "simplicity of genius"?

> <It is easy to " follow my own course". The all autors of texbooks "follow
> their own course".
> <Are you able to understand the oryginal papers wrote by Ampere, Faraday,
> Henry, Stokes, L. Lorenz, Michelson, E. Thomson, Tesla and Dirac?

Are you able to understand the derivation of my formula for mass and energy,
namely e=0.5mVVN(N-k)? Can you follow my logic and thrust in my following
video films?

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

> S*

[szczepan bialek]

Użytkownik "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w
wiadomości news:ab491780-6355-44a7...@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 9:07:30 PM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
>>
> <The textbooks and O. Heaviside is for children.

Very well! I am then a child, and let us see how much that helps me to make
a
new motor that will validate the physics of children.

> <The aether was explained by Faraday and Maxwell.

Maxwell needed the aether as he found out the speed of light by assuming
that radiation was wave motion. As wave motion needs a medium, radiation if
wave motion has to have a medium for propagation. And that medium is aether.

> <They dismis the mystery aether and substituded it with the particles. Now
> it is the rare plasma.

With no proof at all, this is not science but pseudo-science. It has no
predictive quality, this mere assertion. You cannot make motors with this,
nor
design antennas, nor form their radiation patterns.

<Braun was an expert:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/braun-lecture.pdf

<Please note that Braun wrote about the electric waves.
< The em waves work in your proximity card (near field communication).
< The math for the electric waves was made by Steinmetz in XX century. Do
you know that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz#/media/File:Albert_Einstein_with_other_engineers_and_scientists_at_Marconi_RCA_radio_station_1921.jpg

>
< Faraday wrote in 1846:
> https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfarad1846.html
>
> < In 1861 Maxwell wrote:
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
>
> Faraday and Maxwell were the giant scientists. O. Heaviside was an
> engineer.. He wrote:
> "I remember my first look at the great treatise of Maxwell's when I was a
> young man. I saw that it was great, greater and greatest, with prodigious
> possibilities in its power. I was determined to master the book and set to
> work. I was very ignorant. I had no knowledge of mathematical analysis
> (having learned only school algebra and trigonometry which I had largely
> forgotten) and thus my work was laid out for me. It took me several years
> before I could understand as much as I possibly could. Then I set Maxwell
> aside and followed my own course. And I progressed much more quickly. It
> will be understood that I preach the gospel according to my interpretation
> of Maxwell.[8]"

Quite, Heaviside used the vector algebra to simplify the mathematics of
Maxwell,

<So you do not know that the Heaviside math is for the Biot-Savart model
from 1820.
< Maxwell model is quite different. See figs in the Maxwell paper.

and he also corrected Sir J J Thomson's equation to form the
equation for the Lorenz force, namely F=BiL and gave it vector form. His
usage
of vector formulation is now fundamental to electrodynamics.

<So You do not know that Heaviside equations are for electroMAGNETISM.
<The elecrodynamics is described by Ampere.
< Ampere invented the solenoid and proved that the magnetism is an ilusion.
<But in the textbooks (for children) always will be the seperate sections
for electricity, magnetism and gravity.

>
> <It is very difficult to understand the papers wrote by Genius.

They are inferior in quality if they are difficult to understand.

<Are you sure that each kid should unerstand the Maxwell papers.

True genius
always shines out in simplicity and sincerity. But it takes minds of a high
order to understand the quality of such simplicity and sincerity. The
humbugs
and frauds make simple things difficult, with much manipulation, to make it
appear that they are genius. Ever heard of the expression "simplicity of
genius"?

> <It is easy to " follow my own course". The all autors of texbooks "follow
> their own course".
> <Are you able to understand the oryginal papers wrote by Ampere, Faraday,
> Henry, Stokes, L. Lorenz, Michelson, E. Thomson, Tesla and Dirac?

Are you able to understand the derivation of my formula for mass and energy,
namely e=0.5mVVN(N-k)? Can you follow my logic and thrust in my following
video films?

<Now is XXI century. Everything in the classical physics was discowered,
explained and published in XIX century.

<You may read the papers or "follow your own course".
S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

Both Biot-Savart and Maxwell have use for the magnetic field, unlike Einstein,
Feynman, etc. That is the main point. Heaviside worked on the work of Sir J J
Thomson. Which dealt with the movement of an electron beam in the magnetic
field. See the video film IFE -8 to distinguish between the basics of
Newtonian, Maxwellian and Einsteinian electrodynamics in the context of rail
gun reaction. Heaviside used the vector algebra to get the Lorenz relation
which was earlier found by Sir J J Thomson, and he corrected the formula
obtained by Sir J J Thomson. What was the problem here is that the Lorenz
relation does predict that there is no reaction to the Lorenz force, and that
seemed to be the case with rail gun firing. I have proved that this is indeed
the case with my experiments where I suspend a rail gun as a pendulum bob and
note that there is no reaction.

>
> and he also corrected Sir J J Thomson's equation to form the
> equation for the Lorenz force, namely F=BiL and gave it vector form. His
> usage
> of vector formulation is now fundamental to electrodynamics.
>
> <So You do not know that Heaviside equations are for electroMAGNETISM.
> <The elecrodynamics is described by Ampere.

Ampere's formulas are early formulas that have no use for the magnetic field.
They are very different from the Thomson-Heaviside relation. Ampere's formulas
are based upon Newtonian electrodynamics (action at a distance, like gravity
and electrostatics). However Newtonian electrodynamics must be abandoned
following the experiments of Schroeder and Putnam (2007, 2009).

You are very confused. I repeat, see my video film IFE - 8 That should help
to focus your understanding of electrodynamics.

> < Ampere invented the solenoid and proved that the magnetism is an ilusion.
> <But in the textbooks (for children) always will be the seperate sections
> for electricity, magnetism and gravity.

Magnetism is not an illusion, for the force between magnets is very real.
Just as gravity, electrostatic forces are very real.
Nuclear forces are very real.
Magnetism is the basis for compasses, motors, the Earth's field, the Sun's
field - they all interact with the currents caused by ionisation to create
forces affecting all aspects on Earth.
There is such a thing as the magnetic field which is the basis behind the
Maxwell's equations and the Thomson-Heaviside formula. They are used in
engineering. Text books are for practical people. Cranks and frauds like all
the modern physicists need have no use for them.

> >
> > <It is very difficult to understand the papers wrote by Genius.
>
> They are inferior in quality if they are difficult to understand.
>
> <Are you sure that each kid should unerstand the Maxwell papers.

One should read the textbooks carefully, and then think carefully about what
is right and what is wrong about them.
Thus with my experience the references to modern physics and entropy
and conservation laws should edited out.
In their place they must introduce a new understanding of the universe we live
in on the basis of these two formulas:
c(V)=c+V and
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
as I have been saying since 2005 and 2000 respectively.
Best thing the intelligent people of our time can do is to study my video
films carefully and repeat my experiments. Then rewrite the text books.

>
> True genius
> always shines out in simplicity and sincerity. But it takes minds of a high
> order to understand the quality of such simplicity and sincerity. The
> humbugs
> and frauds make simple things difficult, with much manipulation, to make it
> appear that they are genius. Ever heard of the expression "simplicity of
> genius"?
>
> > <It is easy to " follow my own course". The all autors of texbooks "follow
> > their own course".
> > <Are you able to understand the oryginal papers wrote by Ampere, Faraday,
> > Henry, Stokes, L. Lorenz, Michelson, E. Thomson, Tesla and Dirac?
>
> Are you able to understand the derivation of my formula for mass and energy,
> namely e=0.5mVVN(N-k)? Can you follow my logic and thrust in my following
> video films?
>
> <Now is XXI century. Everything in the classical physics was discowered,
> explained and published in XIX century.

What rubbish. They could have done the experiments I have done using large
batteries to generate 3000Amps instead of the supercapacitors I used. Then
they would have found that the Thomson-Heavisde force upon the armature of
the rail gun circuit does NOT have a reaction. That would have validated
the Maxwellian electrodynamics, and the nonsense of Eisntein and quantum theory
etc. would never have corrupted the whole system of physics. We would have
far superior motors for travel and generation of energy, had not the course
of physics been derailed by Einstein et al.

Never too late, what. At least Pentcho Valev is saying how wrong Einstein was,
and even though he is never mentioning my formulas, he is repeating many of
my original standpoints, such as the MMI experiment actually proved that the
speed of light must depend upon the speed of the emitter, if indeed the Earth
is moving in space.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[szczepan bialek]

Użytkownik "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w

wiadomości news:16115bf2-2141-4613...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:42:46 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
>>
> <So you do not know that the Heaviside math is for the Biot-Savart model
> from 1820.
> < Maxwell model is quite different. See figs in the Maxwell paper.

Both Biot-Savart and Maxwell have use for the magnetic field, unlike
Einstein,
Feynman, etc. That is the main point.

<Biot-Savart and Heaviside assumed that is tha analogy E-H.
<So in the magnetic line samethin is flowing.
<Heaviside was sure thed the magnetic charge will be discovered.

But Maxwell wrote:
"Professor Challis[20] conceives magnetism to consist in currents of a fluid
whose direction corresponds with that of the lines of magnetic force".
"Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be themselves
longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
themselves rotatory. A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a
rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like
that of a screw,". From (see page 86):
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

<As you can see Biot-Savart and Challis and Heaviside use the same model.
<In the Maxwell model the magnetic line is like the smoke ring. It rotate
like the flexible shaft.
<So in the result in the solenoid is the whirl.
<In Heaviside model is the flux.

> < Ampere invented the solenoid and proved that the magnetism is an
> ilusion.
> <But in the textbooks (for children) always will be the seperate sections
> for electricity, magnetism and gravity.

Magnetism is not an illusion, for the force between magnets is very real.
Just as gravity, electrostatic forces are very real.
Nuclear forces are very real.

Farady wrote:
"that Mossotti has shown that gravitation, aggregation, electric force, and
electro-chemical action may all have one common connection or origin; and
so, in their actions at a distance, may have in common that infinite scope
which some of these actions are known to possess? "

One should read the textbooks carefully, and then think carefully about what
is right and what is wrong about them.

<But in the textbooks are simplifications.
<To know what is right and what is wrong you must read the oryginal papers.
S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:22:24 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> Użytkownik "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w
> wiadomości news:16115bf2-2141-4613...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:42:46 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> >>
> > <So you do not know that the Heaviside math is for the Biot-Savart model
> > from 1820.
> > < Maxwell model is quite different. See figs in the Maxwell paper.
>
> Both Biot-Savart and Maxwell have use for the magnetic field, unlike
> Einstein,
> Feynman, etc. That is the main point.
>
> <Biot-Savart and Heaviside assumed that is tha analogy E-H.
> <So in the magnetic line samethin is flowing.
> <Heaviside was sure thed the magnetic charge will be discovered.
>
> But Maxwell wrote:
> "Professor Challis[20] conceives magnetism to consist in currents of a fluid
> whose direction corresponds with that of the lines of magnetic force".

Prof. Challis is wrong, as per my book "Fundamentals of Electricity and
Magnetism" by Mehndiratta and Sawhney. There is no fluid. There are current
loops permanently circulating in the magnetic material which is solid. These
current loops are oriented naturally in one direction in a permanent magnet,
or oriented artificially in an electromagnet with magnetising current.

> "Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
> which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be themselves
> longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
> themselves rotatory.

"seems natural", huh. Here Maxwell is restating Newtonian electrodynamics
followed by Ampere, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This
was the thinking of Schroeder back in 2007 when he investigated railgun
recoil. But he did not find the reaction coming down the rails, which should
have been there had Newtonian electrodynamics been valid.

As Biot Savart showed with his empirical formula, there is a rotatory aspect
to the impact of the current within a conductor with respect to the magnetic
field created around it. That is, the magnetic field is at right angles to
the direction of the current. This is a real fact!

A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a
> rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like
> that of a screw,". From (see page 86):
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

But it does, as Biot-Savart clearly shows and any textbook will describe.
Science is about measurement, not speculation, as "seems natural". It just
"seems".

>
> <As you can see Biot-Savart and Challis and Heaviside use the same model.
> <In the Maxwell model the magnetic line is like the smoke ring. It rotate
> like the flexible shaft.

No, they all are basically the same, as they all believe in the existence and
measurement of the magnetic field. They were probably confused by the
dissimilarities between Newtonian and Maxwellian approaches. To resolve this,
Einstein abandoned the Maxwellian approach and reformed the Newtonian model
(thus preserving inertia) with elaborate relativistic and quantum nonsense.

To preserve Maxwell, one has to abandon the fundamental Newtonian laws of
motion. This is inevitable, and a most wonderful step forward for humanity.

> <So in the result in the solenoid is the whirl.
> <In Heaviside model is the flux.
>
> > < Ampere invented the solenoid and proved that the magnetism is an
> > ilusion.
> > <But in the textbooks (for children) always will be the seperate sections
> > for electricity, magnetism and gravity.
>
> Magnetism is not an illusion, for the force between magnets is very real.
> Just as gravity, electrostatic forces are very real.
> Nuclear forces are very real.
>
> Farady wrote:
> "that Mossotti has shown that gravitation, aggregation, electric force, and
> electro-chemical action may all have one common connection or origin; and
> so, in their actions at a distance, may have in common that infinite scope
> which some of these actions are known to possess? "

But action at a distance does not work for electromagnetic fields, as a finite
time is taken for the propagation of force. In gravity the masses are always
there, so there is action at a distance naturally. For nuclear forces, who knows. One cannot measure them as the distances are too small. Anyway Faraday
had no idea about nuclear forces. In textbooks these useless speculation are
avoided, for they serve no purpose. We get to learn those aspects of practical
use, for engineers at any rate. Theoreticians, dogmatists, historical science
studies, etc. can find Faraday useful for such utterances, but when you want
to make a new motor to save the planet these thoughts are not relevant.

>
>
> One should read the textbooks carefully, and then think carefully about what
> is right and what is wrong about them.
>
> <But in the textbooks are simplifications.
> <To know what is right and what is wrong you must read the oryginal papers.

True. I do that in my field all the time. I went through Einstein's 1905 paper
and found how he started with attacking Maxwellian electrodynamics and then
dismissed the existence of aether. That was wrong, as proved by the Schroder-
Putnam experiments (2007, 2009) and mine (2015-17). Science is not static, when
the outlook remains open and healthy.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

> S*

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

news:43807131-fe95-4be7...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:22:24 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> Użytkownik "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w
> wiadomości news:16115bf2-2141-4613...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:42:46 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> >>
> > <So you do not know that the Heaviside math is for the Biot-Savart model
> > from 1820.
> > < Maxwell model is quite different. See figs in the Maxwell paper.
>
> Both Biot-Savart and Maxwell have use for the magnetic field, unlike
> Einstein,
> Feynman, etc. That is the main point.
>
> <Biot-Savart and Heaviside assumed that is tha analogy E-H.

> <So in the magnetic line samething is flowing.
> <Heaviside was sure that the magnetic charge will be discovered.

>
> But Maxwell wrote:
> "Professor Challis[20] conceives magnetism to consist in currents of a
> fluid
> whose direction corresponds with that of the lines of magnetic force".

Prof. Challis is wrong, as per my book "Fundamentals of Electricity and
Magnetism" by Mehndiratta and Sawhney. There is no fluid. There are current
loops permanently circulating in the magnetic material which is solid. These
current loops are oriented naturally in one direction in a permanent magnet,
or oriented artificially in an electromagnet with magnetising current.

<The current loops were proposed by Ampere.
<Permanet magnets are difficult to analize.
<So Ampere, Gauss, Weber and the next were using the solenoids.

> "Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
> which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be themselves
> longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
> themselves rotatory.

"seems natural", huh. Here Maxwell is restating Newtonian electrodynamics
followed by Ampere, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
This
was the thinking of Schroeder back in 2007 when he investigated railgun
recoil. But he did not find the reaction coming down the rails, which should
have been there had Newtonian electrodynamics been valid.

As Biot Savart showed with his empirical formula, there is a rotatory aspect
to the impact of the current within a conductor with respect to the magnetic
field created around it. That is, the magnetic field is at right angles to
the direction of the current. This is a real fact!

<The real fact was discovered by Henry.
<He discovered that the direction of the induced current is distance
dependent.,Do you know that?
<The Maxwell model is in agreement with the Henry discovery.
<Biot -Savart from 1820 is totally wrong.

>A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a
> rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like
> that of a screw,". From (see page 86):
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

But it does, as Biot-Savart clearly shows and any textbook will describe.
Science is about measurement, not speculation, as "seems natural". It just
"seems".

<The textbooks are wrote by writers.
< Henry was the scientist.

>
> <As you can see Biot-Savart and Challis and Heaviside use the same model.
> <In the Maxwell model the magnetic line is like the smoke ring. It rotate
> like the flexible shaft.

No, they all are basically the same, as they all believe in the existence
and
measurement of the magnetic field.

< Faraday discovered that the solenoid rotate the plane of light
polarization.
<Biot Savart do not know about that. If they know that probably they do not
made such big mistake.

They were probably confused by the
dissimilarities between Newtonian and Maxwellian approaches. To resolve
this,
Einstein abandoned the Maxwellian approach and reformed the Newtonian model
(thus preserving inertia) with elaborate relativistic and quantum nonsense.

To preserve Maxwell, one has to abandon the fundamental Newtonian laws of
motion. This is inevitable, and a most wonderful step forward for humanity.

> <So in the result in the solenoid is the whirl.
> <In Heaviside model is the flux.
>
> > < Ampere invented the solenoid and proved that the magnetism is an
> > ilusion.
> > <But in the textbooks (for children) always will be the seperate
> > sections
> > for electricity, magnetism and gravity.
>
> Magnetism is not an illusion, for the force between magnets is very real.
> Just as gravity, electrostatic forces are very real.
> Nuclear forces are very real.
>
> Farady wrote:
> "that Mossotti has shown that gravitation, aggregation, electric force,
> and
> electro-chemical action may all have one common connection or origin; and
> so, in their actions at a distance, may have in common that infinite scope
> which some of these actions are known to possess? "

But action at a distance does not work for electromagnetic fields

<For Maxwell field is only the space where the force acts.

, as a finite
time is taken for the propagation of force. In gravity the masses are always
there, so there is action at a distance naturally. For nuclear forces, who
knows. One cannot measure them as the distances are too small. Anyway
Faraday
had no idea about nuclear forces. In textbooks these useless speculation are
avoided, for they serve no purpose. We get to learn those aspects of
practical
use, for engineers at any rate. Theoreticians, dogmatists, historical
science
studies, etc. can find Faraday useful for such utterances, but when you want
to make a new motor to save the planet these thoughts are not relevant.

<Faraday was sure that the all forces are caused by partices in the space.
<So in the Maxwell model are electric particles and massive ions.
<What is in the your textbooks?

>
>
> One should read the textbooks carefully, and then think carefully about
> what
> is right and what is wrong about them.
>
> <But in the textbooks are simplifications.
> <To know what is right and what is wrong you must read the oryginal
> papers.

True. I do that in my field all the time. I went through Einstein's 1905
paper
and found how he started with attacking Maxwellian electrodynamics and then
dismissed the existence of aether.

<Scientisc do not dismiss the aether.
<But the aether was different .
<Before Stokes the aether was like the masless dielectic.
<Stokes proved that is is jelly-like and rotate with the Sun. Do you know
that?

That was wrong, as proved by the Schroder-
Putnam experiments (2007, 2009) and mine (2015-17).

<Whatis your aether like?
S*

[Arindam Banerjee]

Too bad. Air core solenoids have very little pull in comparison with
electromagnets with iron cores. Different matter altogether. One can compare
an electromagnet with a permanent magnet, not the latter with a solenoid.

>
>
> > "Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
> > which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be themselves
> > longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
> > themselves rotatory.
>
> "seems natural", huh. Here Maxwell is restating Newtonian electrodynamics
> followed by Ampere, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
> This
> was the thinking of Schroeder back in 2007 when he investigated railgun
> recoil. But he did not find the reaction coming down the rails, which should
> have been there had Newtonian electrodynamics been valid.
>
> As Biot Savart showed with his empirical formula, there is a rotatory aspect
> to the impact of the current within a conductor with respect to the magnetic
> field created around it. That is, the magnetic field is at right angles to
> the direction of the current. This is a real fact!
>
> <The real fact was discovered by Henry.
> <He discovered that the direction of the induced current is distance
> dependent.,Do you know that?

There is always a vector formulation which gives the orientation. I made a
program, Inertia Blaster in C/C++ which gives all the insights on a
simulation basis using Biot-Savart formula (found in all textbooks)>

> <The Maxwell model is in agreement with the Henry discovery.
> <Biot -Savart from 1820 is totally wrong.

Biot-Savart relationship of current with the magnetic field is empirical so
it cannot be wrong. It is fundamental to all electrodynamics. It is mentioned
in all textbooks. Please read any textbook, Halliday and Resnick Vol 2 is
excellent for this.

The same as that proposed by 19th century physicists.

> S*

[benj]

Resnick and Halliday say Aether does not exist. That is nonsense.
S* is right that Aether is like super jelly. Michelson-Morley proved
that. This is why light is always the same speed!

19th century science had it right, they just didn't know the did. Now
there is no more science. It's all fantasy and political debate.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Resnick and Halliday mention the relationship between the electric field and
the magnetic field in great detail. They tend to avoid talking about aether.
For a definition of aether, https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.australian/wwQ4LkfM4bc/7uhLA2kLDfQJ
contains the information about 19th century aether got from a referenced
textbook, as well as showing how the MMI experiment actually showed that the
speed of light varies with the emitter. In brief, they ignored the fact that
the MMI apparatus is fixed on the moving earth and so moves with it, and this
fact alters the distances travelled by the light. This is the subtle but
extraordinary bungle which is behind the entire e=mcc nonsense.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

news:b355c1a1-94a1-496d...@googlegroups.com...

<The 19th was long and many physicists have different ideas.
<Could you state the name.
<For example: Stokes or Lorentz.
S*

[szczepan bialek]

"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości

news:252dddda-adea-4763...@googlegroups.com...

>
>For a definition of aether,
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.australian/wwQ4LkfM4bc/7uhLA2kLDfQJ
contains the information about 19th century aether got from a referenced
textbook, as well as showing how the MMI experiment actually showed that the
speed of light varies with the emitter.

<Could you read the oryginal paper by Michelson:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

At the end (before the suplement) is wrote:
"It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any
relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be
small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of
aberration. Stokes has given a theory of aberration which assumes the ether
at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the latter, and only
requires in addition that the relative velocity have a potential; but
Lorentz shows that these conditions are incompatible. Lorentz then proposes
a modification which combines some ideas of Stokes and Fresnel, and assumes
the existence of a potential, together with Fresnel's coefficient. If now it
were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest
with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be
a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails."

Who is right? Stokes or Lorentz?
S*

[benj]

On 6/7/2017 12:56 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci

Stokes is right. There is no aether drift! There also is no length
contraction. By retardation things APPEAR shorter but do not actually
GET SHORTER.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 6/7/2017 11:35 PM, benj wrote:
> On 6/7/2017 12:56 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:

...

>> Who is right? Stokes or Lorentz?
>> S*
>
> Stokes is right. There is no aether drift! There also is no length
> contraction. By retardation things APPEAR shorter but do not actually
> GET SHORTER.

And is there time dilation at a position near a heavy object?

Is there time dilation for someone moving in a big circle
with centripetal acceleration all along?

Or do those things only *appear?*

Are the four dimensions (space and time) actually real to
begin with? Or does the holographic principle show us that
the truth might be different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

--
Jos

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:55:17 AM UTC+10, szczepan bialek wrote:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:252dddda-adea-4763...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >For a definition of aether,
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.australian/wwQ4LkfM4bc/7uhLA2kLDfQJ
> contains the information about 19th century aether got from a referenced
> textbook, as well as showing how the MMI experiment actually showed that the
> speed of light varies with the emitter.
>
> <Could you read the oryginal paper by Michelson:

I did that. A quote below:

****

If the earth were a transparent body, it might perhaps be conceded, in view of the experiments just cited, that the inter-molecular ether was at rest in space, notwithstanding the motion of the earth in its orbit; but we have no right to extend the conclusion from these experiments to opaque bodies. But there can hardly be question that the ether can and does pass through metals. Lorentz cites the illustration of a metallic barometer tube. When the tube is inclined the ether in the space above the mercury is certainly forced out, for it is imcompressible.[4] But again we have no right to assume that it makes its escape with perfect freedom, and if there be any resistance, however slight, we certainly could not assume an opaque body such as the whole earth to offer free passage through its entire mass. But as Lorentz aptly remarks...

***

Here the writers think of aether as some kind of a fluid like say water which
can be squeezed out by mercury.

However the aether that makes sense in the electromagnetics sense is very fine
solid that permeates the whole universe and through which all matter passes,
and of course it supports the progress of electromagnetic waves.

It is through this aether that light progresses as the formula c(v)=c+v where
v is the speed of the emitter of light. This is clearly shown by the
Doppler phenomenon, red shift of stars, blue shift of stars...

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

The primary quality of aether is its fineness - it is infinitely small, or
at any rate finer than the smallest matter (electron). It is the inverse of
the infinite universe. Its infinite smallness is thus the indication of the
infinity of the universe.

Please check up IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity video film on youtube, that I have made
describing the basics of electrodynamics from the anti-gravity perspective.
Central to it, is the cry for the matter that has lost its electron/s. It needs
fulfilment, so it sends out an electric field - which can be guided by
conductors. But in this guidance it creates a magnetic field, and that is
what retards progress. Much like the ocean and the land, one trying to
conquer and the other resisting, from the beginning to the end of Time, which
really has no beginning and end. The scope of infinity pervades all, and
hopefully will overcome the limitations imposed by small minds.

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

[benj]

On 06/08/2017 02:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 6/7/2017 11:35 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 6/7/2017 12:56 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:
> ...
>>> Who is right? Stokes or Lorentz?
>>> S*
>>
>> Stokes is right. There is no aether drift! There also is no length
>> contraction. By retardation things APPEAR shorter but do not actually
>> GET SHORTER.
>
> And is there time dilation at a position near a heavy object?
>
> Is there time dilation for someone moving in a big circle
> with centripetal acceleration all along?
>
> Or do those things only *appear?*

While Jefimenko has shown that length contraction is not real, the issue
of time is not so well resolved. The nature of time is little
understood. However the key result that Jefimenko has shown is that
while there are certain "clocks" which is to say electromagnetic thought
experiments that can be used as timing devices, that do indeed seem to
transform according to SR, he shows others that clearly do not. What
gives? Unknown at this juncture.

> Are the four dimensions (space and time) actually real to
> begin with? Or does the holographic principle show us that
> the truth might be different?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

While I try to avoid talking about cosmology as it is nearly 100% pure
fantasy, I will say that this kind of thinking is on the right track.
The metaparadigms of physics that limit dimensions to merely 3 (or space
time if you prefer that mathematical construction) plus the huge error
of the Big Bang, plus "steam engine thermodynamic" interpretations of
entropy with little understanding of the information theory implications
has led to a whole host of nonsense and errors in physics.

But the Holographic musings of that theory is indeed (in my opinion) on
the right track. For one, the whole gamut of measured physical phenomena
which has been totally rejected by science metaparadigms is indeed
seemingly related to not only far more than 3 dimensions, but also the
crucial aspect of the INTERFACE surface between these manifolds.
Defining the laws of that interface will be the "new physics".

Does that help?

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 6/9/2017 7:13 PM, benj wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 02:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 6/7/2017 11:35 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2017 12:56 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Who is right? Stokes or Lorentz?
>>>> S*
>>>
>>> Stokes is right. There is no aether drift! There also is no length
>>> contraction. By retardation things APPEAR shorter but do not actually
>>> GET SHORTER.
>>
>> And is there time dilation at a position near a heavy object?
>>
>> Is there time dilation for someone moving in a big circle
>> with centripetal acceleration all along?
>>
>> Or do those things only *appear?*
>
> While Jefimenko has shown that length contraction is not real, the issue
> of time is not so well resolved. The nature of time is little
> understood. However the key result that Jefimenko has shown is that
> while there are certain "clocks" which is to say electromagnetic thought
> experiments that can be used as timing devices, that do indeed seem to
> transform according to SR,

You mean that moving in a big circle is covered, by just
treating it at each point as linear motion, described by
SR? But wouldn't that bring back the twin paradox? (While
in GR of course there is no twin paradox..)

> he shows others that clearly do not. What
> gives? Unknown at this juncture.

You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!

Should we conclude, perhaps, that anything that isn't in
Jefimenko's book is simplly "unknown"? Or downright "untrue",
to put it more clearly? (Or perhaps better "heretic" to
protect the people from bad ideas, for their own good?)

--
Jos

[benj]

Question is open. And since points don't exist in reality there can't be
linear actions of a cured path at a point. This is the height of
self-confusion. You obviously still believe that math is more real than
reality. Go ahead, "prove" to me that curved paths are actually linear
at a point. <sigh>

>> he shows others that clearly do not. What
>> gives? Unknown at this juncture.
>
> You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
> in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!

When there has been demonstrated an exception to time dilation then
obviously the whole theory needs rethought. Obviously you demonstrate
that one alternative is to simply go with what you've always believed,
ignore any evidence and refer to anyone questioning your beliefs as kooks.

> Should we conclude, perhaps, that anything that isn't in
> Jefimenko's book is simplly "unknown"? Or downright "untrue",
> to put it more clearly? (Or perhaps better "heretic" to
> protect the people from bad ideas, for their own good?)

Well, one COULD actually go look as what Jefimenko had done and point
out the mistakes he made showing that his supposed anomaly was actually
a mistake of some sort. OR one can take your approach and refuse to look
at the example and just use your superpowers to "know" that it's wrong
because it doesn't agree with the dogma you've been trained to accept.
It is clearly far more "scientific" to boldly ridicule new ideas without
having ever read the arguments leading up to them than to actually check
something you "know" to be in error and show exactly where it went
wrong. Checking things you "know" to be wrong is a waste of time and
clearly pseudoscience. Right?

[Jos Bergervoet]

Why is the question open? Is the question whether 2 plus 2
equals 4 also open, benj?

> .. And since points don't exist in reality there can't be

> linear actions of a cured path at a point.

So particles don't exist either since they cannot be at any
point. At least that proves that the waves of QM must be right!

..

>>> he shows others that clearly do not. What
>>> gives? Unknown at this juncture.
>>
>> You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
>> in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!
>
> When there has been demonstrated an exception to time dilation then obviously the

> ...

Is that a yes or a no?

..

>> Should we conclude, perhaps, that anything that isn't in
>> Jefimenko's book is simplly "unknown"? Or downright "untrue",
>> to put it more clearly? (Or perhaps better "heretic" to
>> protect the people from bad ideas, for their own good?)
>
> Well, one COULD actually go look as what Jefimenko had done

He derived one formula (describing the retarded field of
an arbitrary source distribution exactly as it would follow
from Maxwell's equations). And he did not understand that
that is what the formula shows.

> .. Checking things you "know" to be wrong is a waste of time and
> clearly pseudoscience. Right?

Hey benj, did you already check the tables of multiplication
today? Maybe they changed! (Or else go measure some resistors..)

--
Jos

[benj]

It most certainly is! In fact 2+2 can be shown to NOT equal 4 and even
worse it would take a huge tome to even explain what "2" actually is!
Why do you worship math when you have no idea what it is?

>> .. And since points don't exist in reality there can't be
>> linear actions of a cured path at a point.
>
> So particles don't exist either since they cannot be at any
> point. At least that proves that the waves of QM must be right!

"Point particles" are obviously bogus by definition! I've said so here
many times. As for ordinary particles, well they aren't points and have
extent and therefore one has to exactly define what one means by "at any
point" before one can have a "scientific" political argument over it.

> ..
>>>> he shows others that clearly do not. What
>>>> gives? Unknown at this juncture.
>>>
>>> You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
>>> in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!
>>
>> When there has been demonstrated an exception to time dilation then
>> obviously the
>> ...
>
> Is that a yes or a no?

Answer is obviously "needs more thought". An option you obviously have
little intention of using.

> ..
>>> Should we conclude, perhaps, that anything that isn't in
>>> Jefimenko's book is simplly "unknown"? Or downright "untrue",
>>> to put it more clearly? (Or perhaps better "heretic" to
>>> protect the people from bad ideas, for their own good?)
>>
>> Well, one COULD actually go look as what Jefimenko had done
>
> He derived one formula (describing the retarded field of
> an arbitrary source distribution exactly as it would follow
> from Maxwell's equations). And he did not understand that
> that is what the formula shows.

And what did he not understand? Anyway what he examined was the
transformations from a moving frame to a laboratory frame (derived from
Maxwell's equations without the various Einstein assumptions) for
various configurations of electromagnetic "clocks". Some transformed
according to SR as expected. Some did not. That is the crux.

>> .. Checking things you "know" to be wrong is a waste of time and
>> clearly pseudoscience. Right?
>
> Hey benj, did you already check the tables of multiplication
> today? Maybe they changed! (Or else go measure some resistors..)

Given that we just learned that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, [I have two
vectors each of length 2. I add them together and they don't equal 4!]
Probably a quick revisit to multiplication tables might be productive!

Obviously you are operating using the metaparadigm of science which
states that all laws of nature do not depend upon location or time of
occurrence. This is widely observed, however your leap of faith using
your "superpowers" to conclude that this must ALWAYS be true is just a
bit, shall we say , overreaching.

[Jos Bergervoet]

If you can first explain what "is" is, that is..

> Why do you worship math when you have no idea what it is?

That was Jefimenko!

>>> .. And since points don't exist in reality there can't be
>>> linear actions of a cured path at a point.
>>
>> So particles don't exist either since they cannot be at any
>> point. At least that proves that the waves of QM must be right!
>
> "Point particles" are obviously bogus by definition! I've said so here
> many times. As for ordinary particles, well they aren't points and have
> extent

But what is extent? if points don't exist there also can
be no distance defined between different points, so extent
loses its meaning..

>> ..
>>>>> he shows others that clearly do not. What
>>>>> gives? Unknown at this juncture.
>>>>
>>>> You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
>>>> in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!
>>>
>>> When there has been demonstrated an exception to time dilation then
>>> obviously the
>>> ...
>>
>> Is that a yes or a no?
>
> Answer is obviously "needs more thought". An option you obviously have
> little intention of using.

You mean like "it needs more thought" whether water will
freeze if you cool it enough? Yes, who knows..

>> ..
>>>> Should we conclude, perhaps, that anything that isn't in
>>>> Jefimenko's book is simplly "unknown"? Or downright "untrue",
>>>> to put it more clearly? (Or perhaps better "heretic" to
>>>> protect the people from bad ideas, for their own good?)
>>>
>>> Well, one COULD actually go look as what Jefimenko had done
>>
>> He derived one formula (describing the retarded field of
>> an arbitrary source distribution exactly as it would follow
>> from Maxwell's equations). And he did not understand that
>> that is what the formula shows.
>
> And what did he not understand?

When he was praised for deriving such a complete all-in-one
formula to describe the Maxwell fields for any given source,
he denied that that was what the equation did! (At least I
remember reading so, but I can't quickly find it back..)

> .. Anyway what he examined was the

> transformations from a moving frame to a laboratory frame (derived from
> Maxwell's equations without the various Einstein assumptions) for
> various configurations of electromagnetic "clocks". Some transformed
> according to SR as expected. Some did not. That is the crux.

What exactly was behaving in an unexpected way?

>>> .. Checking things you "know" to be wrong is a waste of time and
>>> clearly pseudoscience. Right?
>>
>> Hey benj, did you already check the tables of multiplication
>> today? Maybe they changed! (Or else go measure some resistors..)
>
> Given that we just learned that 2 + 2 does not equal 4,

Yes I see.. (What does it equal, then?)

..

> Obviously you are operating using the metaparadigm of science which
> states that all laws of nature do not depend upon location or time of
> occurrence.

We discussed the laws of mathematics, actually..

--
Jos

[Arindam Banerjee]

There cannot be any aether drift as all bodies including nuclei of atoms
move in aether, a solid substance. It is NOT like a submarine moving through
water where we can measure "water drift" or the speed of the submarine with
respect to the still water.

It is like putting a sieve through water. There can be no "water drift" with
a sieve moving through water as all the water passes through the mesh because
the water molecules are finer than the holes in the sieve.

So matter moves like that through aether, as a sieve through water. There can
be no "aether drift" just as there can be no "water drift" when a sieve goes
through water. But as I said there can be a water drift when a submarine goes
through water.

Of course, when we fully internalise that the MMI experiment actually shows
that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter (I have posted
the link in this or some other thread recently in this ng that shows the
bungle they made in the analysis, that they forgot that the MMI apparatus was
also moving with the moving Earth and so the light distances got changed in
reality and this is exactly what they ignored) then all the e=mcc nonsense
about time dilation, length contraction, mass increase etc. will be clearly
absolute nonsense, at best an appearance.

Like, suppose a body is moving at the speed of light away from us, and is
connected by a lossless fibreglass tube so they we can see it going away.
Now, the information from that body will always be static when we consider
that c(v)=c+v and when v=-c then c(v)=0. So a particular frame will be stuck
to our eyes, and we will think heh as it is moving at c time dilation has
happened, nothing is happening there, it has all stopped as per e=mcc theory!
At slightly less speed than c, we can actually see how slowly the things move
in the body. But really, life is perfectly normal in the body; it only appears
to be slow to our eyes.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[benj]

Well yeah. Lets see. This can't be so hard to figure out! When you place
points one after another they create a distance! Well, how many points?
Easy There are an infinite number of points packed between two points
defining any distance. (You know I'm right here) But then in reality not
only do points not exist but infinite things don't exist either (except
for human stupidity but that's another subject). So now now we are using
things that don't exist (points) to define a distance which is created
by application of something else that doesn't exist (infinity). And you
wonder whey nobody is studing physics these days? "Loss of meaning" puts
it mildly!

>>> ..
>>>>>> he shows others that clearly do not. What
>>>>>> gives? Unknown at this juncture.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
>>>>> in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!
>>>>
>>>> When there has been demonstrated an exception to time dilation then
>>>> obviously the
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Is that a yes or a no?
>>
>> Answer is obviously "needs more thought". An option you obviously have
>> little intention of using.
>
> You mean like "it needs more thought" whether water will
> freeze if you cool it enough? Yes, who knows..

Nope more like when people measure the freezing point of water and then
conclude that they know everything there is to know of about water
because of it. No I mean "needs more thought" like the continued study
of properties that everyone pretends don't exist yet have been measured
over and over by science and ignored as nonsense. Like say the storate
of psychotronic radiation...

>>> ..
>>>>> Should we conclude, perhaps, that anything that isn't in
>>>>> Jefimenko's book is simplly "unknown"? Or downright "untrue",
>>>>> to put it more clearly? (Or perhaps better "heretic" to
>>>>> protect the people from bad ideas, for their own good?)
>>>>
>>>> Well, one COULD actually go look as what Jefimenko had done
>>>
>>> He derived one formula (describing the retarded field of
>>> an arbitrary source distribution exactly as it would follow
>>> from Maxwell's equations). And he did not understand that
>>> that is what the formula shows.
>>
>> And what did he not understand?
>
> When he was praised for deriving such a complete all-in-one
> formula to describe the Maxwell fields for any given source,
> he denied that that was what the equation did! (At least I
> remember reading so, but I can't quickly find it back..)

"His" equations for Maxwell's fields (you re deftly changing the subject
here) were also derived by others and are straight forward solutions of
maxwell's equations which everyone agrees with. Arguing about "meaning"
is semantics not science or math? A new form does create some excellent
insight though. Of course this is not "new". These same equations have
been around EM for years just being used in bits and pieces.

>> .. Anyway what he examined was the
>> transformations from a moving frame to a laboratory frame (derived from
>> Maxwell's equations without the various Einstein assumptions) for
>> various configurations of electromagnetic "clocks". Some transformed
>> according to SR as expected. Some did not. That is the crux.
>
> What exactly was behaving in an unexpected way?

Now you've got me backed into a corner and I'd have to go look up the
derivation to describe it in detail. But basically relative motion of
the "clock" did not transform according to SR.

>>>> .. Checking things you "know" to be wrong is a waste of time and
>>>> clearly pseudoscience. Right?
>>>
>>> Hey benj, did you already check the tables of multiplication
>>> today? Maybe they changed! (Or else go measure some resistors..)
>>
>> Given that we just learned that 2 + 2 does not equal 4,
>
> Yes I see.. (What does it equal, then?)

Whatever I IMAGINE it to equal! The only proviso is I must be
self-consistent.

> ..
>> Obviously you are operating using the metaparadigm of science which
>> states that all laws of nature do not depend upon location or time of
>> occurrence.
>
> We discussed the laws of mathematics, actually..

What I said. But since math is pure fantasy, the metaparadigm is far
more likely to prove correct.

[benj]

Sorry But Tesla was from the West and therefore cannot be wrong. He
invented the 20th century! The speed of light does not very with the
velocity of the emitter. Any beginner search of science would show this
true (even though all the kooks here believe as you do with their whole
hearts) Michelson himself measured this many times and it's never
changed since. And the whole point of MMX was the apparatus was moving
with the earth. You need to read up on Western History of science.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Tesla was a pioneer. Much work has been done in electrical engineering since
Tesla. Especially in microwave networking, antenna radiation pattern beam
forming, solid state electronics, mathematical modelling prior to prototyping,
etc. All these advancements need Maxwellian electrodynamics for correct and
reliable engineering, and Tesla would have supported all these to the
maximum for he had no use at all for Eisnteinian nonsense, for he was a
sincere and decent human being. He was not exactly from the evil WestWest, he
was from the EastWest and so he had a heart as well as a head. Like the
Russians, who have been so good to us thirdworlders.

Had Tesla done the experiments I have recently done then he would have
been a lot more inventive, made a flying saucer for instance. He was persecuted
by the Edison-Einstein tribals of the WestWest. I only wish that
someone like Tesla was around now, instead of the corrupt criminal lots in
charge of everything.

He
> invented the 20th century!

Well, yes, the good bits like AC. The bad bits (nuclear weapons) along with the
e=mcc and e=hv nonsense (relativistic quantum electrodynamics) was invented
by Einstein et al.

> The speed of light does not very with the
> velocity of the emitter.

It does, and that way accounts for the Doppler effect; and the fact that
e=mcc etc. is absolute nonsense carried on by the corrupt establishment such
as spacetime and black holes and other conjectural pseudo-science. If e=mcc
was correct why does the Sun have a strong magnetic field? That can only happen
when the Sun has got a very cold core supporting powerful and constantly
circulating electric currents. And when it has a very cold core, then it
cannot sustain fusion - it would be ridiculous.

> Any beginner search of science would show this
> true (even though all the kooks here believe as you do with their whole
> hearts) Michelson himself measured this many times and it's never
> changed since.

Michelson was trying to measure "aetheric drift" when aether could never drift
as per the very definition of aether which pervades all the universe including
all matter. He was pretending that it was moving like water around a
submarine. So he was dishonest to begin with. He is thus the father of
dishonesty in physics, and had worthy followers in all the "modern physicists".
What dishonest people do, and pass of as science, does have a timespan as we
see but let us all hope that like everything else such dishonesty too shall
pass and reason shall prevail in due course. It cannot be the all the
establishments shall continue to be corrupt for all time! Just that, the
current lot will see to it that it does last their own lifetimes.

He could never have found "aetheric drift" but he could have found out the
absolute velocity of the Earth in space had the speed of light really been
invariant. But as the Earth moves, and as the speed of light varies with the
emitter, he could not find the velocity of Earth in space, let alone the
"aetheric drift".

> And the whole point of MMX was the apparatus was moving
> with the earth. You need to read up on Western History of science.

In their analysis they did not consider the apparatus was moving with the
Earth. That is clear from the textbooks explaining the experiment. It is a
great but subtle blunder. I have dealt with it in detail in 2005, and my
explanation for this huge mistake is to be found from this link:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.australian/wwQ4LkfM4bc/7uhLA2kLDfQJ

The textbook explanation is detailed, and then my objection is raised.
Plenty of so-called relativistic effects apparently happen when we neglect the
fact that the Earth is moving, and so, after a beam of light has left a point
that point too moves, so distances travelled vary with the angle of the beam
with respect to the motion of the Earth.

Anyway the Pakistanis following the Perendev simulation have created a
perpetual motion machine, and that throws not just modern physics but also a
good deal of classical physics out of the window. The racist and bigoted
of the West will continue to ignore and ridicule, though. Sad.

Going back to Plato of the West, what to do when the leaders and rulers are
completely corrupt? Plato's answer was simple: pray to the Divine. Well, that
is what I have been doing since 1999, for enlightenment, and getting same. Pity
that we have crude and corrupt atheists in charge of everything, these days. Sad.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Jos Bergervoet]

One for each Planck length seems enough. (But maybe Nyquist would
like to have twice that number?)

> Easy There are an infinite number of points packed between two points
> defining any distance. (You know I'm right here)

That's why I am asking you all these questions!

> But then in reality not
> only do points not exist but infinite things don't exist either (except
> for human stupidity but that's another subject).

Of course, that's not related to our discussions at all.

> So now now we are using
> things that don't exist (points) to define a distance which is created
> by application of something else that doesn't exist (infinity). And you
> wonder whey nobody is studing physics these days?

But also because there are so much more important things! (Like
"diversity studies", "political science", "women's studies",
"environmental studies", and most importantly "climate studies"
of course.)

> "Loss of meaning" puts
> it mildly!

Indeed..

>>>> ..
>>>>>>> he shows others that clearly do not. What
>>>>>>> gives? Unknown at this juncture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
>>>>>> in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!
>>>>>
>>>>> When there has been demonstrated an exception to time dilation then
>>>>> obviously the
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Is that a yes or a no?
>>>
>>> Answer is obviously "needs more thought". An option you obviously have
>>> little intention of using.
>>
>> You mean like "it needs more thought" whether water will
>> freeze if you cool it enough? Yes, who knows..
>
> Nope more like when people measure the freezing point of water and then
> conclude that they know everything there is to know of about water
> because of it. No I mean "needs more thought" like the continued study
> of properties that everyone pretends don't exist yet have been measured
> over and over by science and ignored as nonsense. Like say the storate
> of psychotronic radiation...

Yes, spiritual aspects are very important. (And I predict that if
we understand one water molecule freezing, that will finally teach
us what is the sound of one clapping hand!)

And was there 97% consensus about that within the science community?

>>>>> .. Checking things you "know" to be wrong is a waste of time and
>>>>> clearly pseudoscience. Right?
>>>>
>>>> Hey benj, did you already check the tables of multiplication
>>>> today? Maybe they changed! (Or else go measure some resistors..)
>>>
>>> Given that we just learned that 2 + 2 does not equal 4,
>>
>> Yes I see.. (What does it equal, then?)
>
> Whatever I IMAGINE it to equal! The only proviso is I must be
> self-consistent.

That seems to be a very old-fashioned restriction!

>> ..
>>> Obviously you are operating using the metaparadigm of science which
>>> states that all laws of nature do not depend upon location or time of
>>> occurrence.
>>
>> We discussed the laws of mathematics, actually..
>
> What I said. But since math is pure fantasy, the metaparadigm is far
> more likely to prove correct.

So the operating metaparadigm I am using is correct, you say?!

--
Jos

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 6/14/2017 8:05 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:34:41 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:

...
..

>> Sorry But Tesla was from the West and therefore cannot be wrong.
>
> Tesla was a pioneer. Much work has been done in electrical engineering since
> Tesla. Especially in microwave networking, antenna radiation pattern beam
> forming, solid state electronics, mathematical modelling prior to prototyping,
> etc.

That was also all done in the West, wasn't it?!

> All these advancements need Maxwellian electrodynamics for correct and
> reliable engineering, and Tesla would have supported all these to the
> maximum for he had no use at all for Eisnteinian nonsense,

On the contrary, Tesla typically is the kind of guy who would
immediately have used Einstein's results to invent a warp drive!
You just don't understand the spirit of the West, Arindam..

> for he was a
> sincere and decent human being. He was not exactly from the evil WestWest, he
> was from the EastWest and so he had a heart as well as a head. Like the
> Russians, who have been so good to us thirdworlders.

You don't understand the Russian soul either..

> Had Tesla done the experiments I have recently done then he would have
> been a lot more inventive, made a flying saucer for instance. He was persecuted
> by the Edison-Einstein tribals of the WestWest. I only wish that
> someone like Tesla was around now,

But *you* are around! So what's holding you back? (O, of course,
you don't have the spirit. Third-world lethargy again..)

..

> Anyway the Pakistanis following the Perendev simulation have created a
> perpetual motion machine,

Yes, I heard about it! It only takes an infinity of time to start
it up, they said. But that's a small price to pay, after that it
will run forever!

..

> Going back to Plato of the West, what to do when the leaders and rulers are
> completely corrupt? Plato's answer was simple: pray to the Divine. Well, that
> is what I have been doing since 1999, for enlightenment, and getting same. Pity
> that we have crude and corrupt atheists in charge of everything,

Because you only prayed for your own enlightenment, you egotistic
third-worlder! We Christians always pray for the salvation of
others (because we are so generous.)

> these days. Sad.

Yes, incovfefeble.

--
Jos

[benj]

Except, of course Nyquist is phase dependent and in the quantum world of
Planck knowing the exact phase is how shall we put it? Not very probable.

>> Easy There are an infinite number of points packed between two points
>> defining any distance. (You know I'm right here)
>
> That's why I am asking you all these questions!

I did wonder why!

>> But then in reality not
>> only do points not exist but infinite things don't exist either (except
>> for human stupidity but that's another subject).
>
> Of course, that's not related to our discussions at all.

Um, yes. Not at all.

>> So now now we are using
>> things that don't exist (points) to define a distance which is created
>> by application of something else that doesn't exist (infinity). And you

>> wonder whey nobody is studying physics these days?

>
> But also because there are so much more important things! (Like
> "diversity studies", "political science", "women's studies",
> "environmental studies", and most importantly "climate studies"
> of course.)

It is all about priorities! Say, can one study "priority science"?

>> "Loss of meaning" puts
>> it mildly!
>
> Indeed..
>
>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>> he shows others that clearly do not. What
>>>>>>>> gives? Unknown at this juncture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean that it is "unknown" whether there is time dilation
>>>>>>> in a strong gravity field near a heavy object??!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When there has been demonstrated an exception to time dilation then
>>>>>> obviously the
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that a yes or a no?
>>>>
>>>> Answer is obviously "needs more thought". An option you obviously have
>>>> little intention of using.
>>>
>>> You mean like "it needs more thought" whether water will
>>> freeze if you cool it enough? Yes, who knows..
>>
>> Nope more like when people measure the freezing point of water and then
>> conclude that they know everything there is to know of about water
>> because of it. No I mean "needs more thought" like the continued study
>> of properties that everyone pretends don't exist yet have been measured

>> over and over by science and ignored as nonsense. Like say the storage

>> of psychotronic radiation...
>
> Yes, spiritual aspects are very important. (And I predict that if
> we understand one water molecule freezing, that will finally teach
> us what is the sound of one clapping hand!)

Well, maybe the sound of one hand freezing.

Ah so science is all determined by a democratic vote. May I recommend
some courses in "climate studies"? They are very big on 97% consensus too.

>>>>>> .. Checking things you "know" to be wrong is a waste of time and
>>>>>> clearly pseudoscience. Right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey benj, did you already check the tables of multiplication
>>>>> today? Maybe they changed! (Or else go measure some resistors..)
>>>>
>>>> Given that we just learned that 2 + 2 does not equal 4,
>>>
>>> Yes I see.. (What does it equal, then?)
>>
>> Whatever I IMAGINE it to equal! The only proviso is I must be
>> self-consistent.
>
> That seems to be a very old-fashioned restriction!

Um, let us use the word "traditional" shall we?

>>> ..
>>>> Obviously you are operating using the metaparadigm of science which
>>>> states that all laws of nature do not depend upon location or time of
>>>> occurrence.
>>>
>>> We discussed the laws of mathematics, actually..
>>
>> What I said. But since math is pure fantasy, the metaparadigm is far
>> more likely to prove correct.
>
> So the operating metaparadigm I am using is correct, you say?!

"Far more likely", is not "is". There's a world of quantum difference
between them.

[benj]

Oh Jos you are such an unrepentant troll! (Yeah I couldn't resist either!)

[benj]

Wow! I must admit that is a detailed text. And new ideas abound. Quite
frankly the idea that impressed me the most and one I'd never heard
before was that Einstein's relativity theory was responsible for two
world wars, and all other violence (including all child molesting) of
the 20th century. This is clearly break-through understanding of modern
life. This is exactly the kind of "out of the box" thinking that today
drives most of our news media. I think you are onto something big.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:18:54 AM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 6/14/2017 8:05 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:34:41 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> ...
> ..
> >> Sorry But Tesla was from the West and therefore cannot be wrong.
> >
> > Tesla was a pioneer. Much work has been done in electrical engineering since
> > Tesla. Especially in microwave networking, antenna radiation pattern beam
> > forming, solid state electronics, mathematical modelling prior to prototyping,
> > etc.
>
> That was also all done in the West, wasn't it?!

Not all. I had to learn a lot in India on my own to make antennas that
worked. That meant throwing out all quantum nonsense and concentrating upon
the interaction of electric and magnetic fields. I invented math modelling to
cut down on times spent testing antennas at the distant test site. A well
modelled antenna system cut down on testing time drastically, saved huge
time and money... Then again, I invented googling while doing my M.Tech in
IIT Delhi in 1986, my thesis was "Information Systems based upon Partial-Match
Retrivals". So you see, plenty of work done in the East is appropriated by
the West. The key fundamental thought processes underlying technology have
all originated from the East. Now China is doing better and better while
the West is stuck with the e=mcc nonsense which will take them nowhere in
the science and technology stakes.

>
> > All these advancements need Maxwellian electrodynamics for correct and
> > reliable engineering, and Tesla would have supported all these to the
> > maximum for he had no use at all for Eisnteinian nonsense,
>
> On the contrary, Tesla typically is the kind of guy who would
> immediately have used Einstein's results to invent a warp drive!
> You just don't understand the spirit of the West, Arindam..

Tesla had no use for Einstein's work as he knew it was nonsense. As is well
known to the rest, the West is about lying and stealing, robbing and killing,
polluting and defiling, anything and everything from everywhere for its own
selfish and snobbish gains.

> > for he was a
> > sincere and decent human being. He was not exactly from the evil WestWest, he
> > was from the EastWest and so he had a heart as well as a head. Like the
> > Russians, who have been so good to us thirdworlders.
>
> You don't understand the Russian soul either..

I do, for I was a honorary Russian living among Russians as a child. I still
like to think of myself as a Russian as a result.

> > Had Tesla done the experiments I have recently done then he would have
> > been a lot more inventive, made a flying saucer for instance. He was persecuted
> > by the Edison-Einstein tribals of the WestWest. I only wish that
> > someone like Tesla was around now,
>
> But *you* are around! So what's holding you back? (O, of course,
> you don't have the spirit. Third-world lethargy again..)

I have done enough for one person who has had minimal support. Alone and
unaided I have demolished the wrong modern physics, created a new physics with
my new formula linking mass and energy, done new experiments to prove them
and shown them to the world using video. The world can see how lazy I have
been! :-)

And all that is just one aspect of my works! Yes I should work a lot harder no
doubt but given the hostility of the West - they have hounded me out of
employment, denied me any advantages, ostracised me as much as possible - I
have to consider my options. My work does not stop; it will
continue at its own pace, which could be quite leisurely. Enjoying life is
also important.

>
> ..
> > Anyway the Pakistanis following the Perendev simulation have created a
> > perpetual motion machine,
>
> Yes, I heard about it! It only takes an infinity of time to start
> it up, they said. But that's a small price to pay, after that it
> will run forever!

It does not take an infinity of time to start it up. It starts immediately.
See their video. I think the problem lies with the expense involved in the
permanent magnets. If they replace those permanent magnets with electromagnets
with magnetising current from a feedback loop then it should be cheaper and
easier to mass produce. Now, this is a brand new idea from my side,
mentioned earlier in facebook to my old friends.

>
> ..
> > Going back to Plato of the West, what to do when the leaders and rulers are
> > completely corrupt? Plato's answer was simple: pray to the Divine. Well, that
> > is what I have been doing since 1999, for enlightenment, and getting same. Pity
> > that we have crude and corrupt atheists in charge of everything,
>
> Because you only prayed for your own enlightenment, you egotistic
> third-worlder! We Christians always pray for the salvation of
> others (because we are so generous.)

What a joke!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

Thanks for reading it! I don't think the news media has any use for me and
my new ideas. They avoid me like the plague and why not, they are totally
corrupt. Right now they are turning a drug smuggler into a saint+goddess, such
is their priority!

True if Tesla had done my experiments in the 19th century he would have made
a flying saucer, no problem at all for a man of his genius. He just did not
find the correct equation behind matter and energy formation, for he was
blocked by the wrong notion of entropy, law of conservation of energy, etc.
Had his thinking been a bit more free, he could have done what I did and
so saved the world from the horrors of the 20th century.

But unfortunately, inhuman creatures rule today and so my problem is
that when I do make a working anti-gravity device they will just ignore it and
revile me. They are so horrid, see. What to do! Maybe there is some hope in
the far east, but I don't know. It is safest to keep one's findings to oneself,
but then that too is cowardly.

Prayer then is the best answer. Dedicating one's work to the Gods and Goddesses
is the only route for the polytheist and in Their guidance I shall put my trust.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[benj]

Just wait until the next election when the get the votes to dump Trump
and appoint the Saint/goddess as Queen. All the drug smuggling and dead
witnesses will all be forgotten.

> True if Tesla had done my experiments in the 19th century he would have made
> a flying saucer, no problem at all for a man of his genius. He just did not
> find the correct equation behind matter and energy formation, for he was
> blocked by the wrong notion of entropy, law of conservation of energy, etc.
> Had his thinking been a bit more free, he could have done what I did and
> so saved the world from the horrors of the 20th century.

Actually rumor has it that Tesla and Einstein worked together to create
what turned out to be a time machine (they didn't expect that). Tesla
decided it was too dangerous to leave in the hands of humans and bailed
out of the project after destroying some key data. But natch those in
power have tried to keep it going. So they say.

> But unfortunately, inhuman creatures rule today and so my problem is
> that when I do make a working anti-gravity device they will just ignore it and
> revile me. They are so horrid, see. What to do! Maybe there is some hope in
> the far east, but I don't know. It is safest to keep one's findings to oneself,
> but then that too is cowardly.

Keeping it secret accomplishes nothing. Don't expect people to fall all
over themselves for it. Best is to just build a few and give them away.
Then if you can manage to stay alive, one day you'll be famous (after
you are long dead, of course.)

> Prayer then is the best answer. Dedicating one's work to the Gods and Goddesses
> is the only route for the polytheist and in Their guidance I shall put my trust.

The um, intelligences who guide and control the "design" of this space,
know pretty much what the plan calls for. Better to work with them and
against them. Trust me.

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>

[Arindam Banerjee]

Bit of a misunderstanding here, but never mind. It confirms my view that
Trump ia an angel among the unscrupulous devils. Let us hope that he drains all
the foul swamps, including the awesomely stinking swamp of modern physics.

> > True if Tesla had done my experiments in the 19th century he would have made
> > a flying saucer, no problem at all for a man of his genius. He just did not
> > find the correct equation behind matter and energy formation, for he was
> > blocked by the wrong notion of entropy, law of conservation of energy, etc.
> > Had his thinking been a bit more free, he could have done what I did and
> > so saved the world from the horrors of the 20th century.
>
> Actually rumor has it that Tesla and Einstein worked together to create
> what turned out to be a time machine (they didn't expect that). Tesla
> decided it was too dangerous to leave in the hands of humans and bailed
> out of the project after destroying some key data. But natch those in
> power have tried to keep it going. So they say.

hee hee hee rumour indeed and shows that the fundamental equations of
Einsteinism are fact=fiction and fiction=fact.

> > But unfortunately, inhuman creatures rule today and so my problem is
> > that when I do make a working anti-gravity device they will just ignore it and
> > revile me. They are so horrid, see. What to do! Maybe there is some hope in
> > the far east, but I don't know. It is safest to keep one's findings to oneself,
> > but then that too is cowardly.
>
> Keeping it secret accomplishes nothing. Don't expect people to fall all
> over themselves for it. Best is to just build a few and give them away.
> Then if you can manage to stay alive, one day you'll be famous (after
> you are long dead, of course.)

Yes, it is a peril isn't it, to be the sole god among lotsa devils. I often
wonder why I am still alive, why haven't the devils killed me yet. The only
conclusion is that my friends are more powerful than my foes, but my friends
do have their limits. So they cannot support my work as they have no money and
no power, but they can do a certain amount of exposure and disruption if I am
killed and that won't suit the rich and powerful devils.

Not that I am
unsympathetic to the devils in general - they are the cousins of us gods, after
all. Living among the devils of Australia and also India all my life, I know
them well enough to write understandingly about them in my metaphysical
work "The Son of Hiranyaksh". (My only self-published book available from Amazon.)

By friends I mean those angels or gods I do not know but who know me
and protect me from the harm wished upon me by the Einsteinian devils, whose
numbers are legion.

Your advice is well meant, but I think I should give a shot at becoming the
world's first trillionaire with my new inventions. Okay I may die unknown
and unlamented in that process; but when my company after I am gone becomes a
multi-trillion dollar company then my spirit above will be satisfied. Once the
Star Trek economy is ushered in, the very concept of money will become obsolete.

Needless to say, one cannot become a trillionaire without making the angels
and also lotsa devils billionaires. Let this be an incentive for the devils not
to murder me, profit from me instead by keeping me alive and work at top
efficiency.

Should not be too difficult really - less than writing "The Son of Hiranyaksh"
and certainly a less challenging task than writing my next book "The God of War". The idea behind my company is to make money not by fooling people but by
making them wise and happy instead. Let us see, if that can work in our
world of lies run by the lying devils.

> > Prayer then is the best answer. Dedicating one's work to the Gods and Goddesses
> > is the only route for the polytheist and in Their guidance I shall put my trust.
>
> The um, intelligences who guide and control the "design" of this space,
> know pretty much what the plan calls for. Better to work with them and
> against them. Trust me.

No doubt. Let us see what happens, how things turn out. New technologies have
their own ways of making impacts that may or may not upset the best laid plans
of mice and men.

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