The fundamental issue about renewable energy

[Arindam Banerjee]

The fundamental issue about renewable energy is how capture and use it before it gets destroyed.

Life becomes much simpler and better when the bogus notion of entropy is abandoned.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[whodat]

On 5/28/2020 3:19 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> The fundamental issue about renewable energy is how capture and use it before it gets destroyed.
>
> Life becomes much simpler and better when the bogus notion of entropy is abandoned.

There's just no end to your insanity.

[olli...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 3:19:35 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> The fundamental issue about renewable energy is how capture and use it before it gets destroyed.
>

Hmmm -- Energy is NEVER destroyed. Nor CREATED.

If there is no place for electricity from a wind turbine to get used, it is not generated.

[olli...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 3:19:35 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> The fundamental issue about renewable energy is how capture and use it before it gets destroyed.
>

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Hmmm -- two identical posts six minutes apart.

It seems the ass hat's memory is down to six minutes.

Are they getting your room at the home ready for you, ass hat?

--
Jim Pennino

[Mitch Raemsch]

Order is order. Flip over your solar panel to use it again.
Add more wire for a bigger output...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Arindam Banerjee]

There is no end to your inanity.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 23:48:51 UTC+10, oll...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 3:19:35 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > The fundamental issue about renewable energy is how capture and use it before it gets destroyed.
> >
>
> Hmmm -- Energy is NEVER destroyed. Nor CREATED.

Energy is always getting created by the large bodies like Sun, Earth, and the stars. It is getting destroyed or rather lost due to diminishment in the infinite universe.

>
> If there is no place for electricity from a wind turbine to get used, it is not generated.

Talk coherently at least.

[whodat]

It would be good if you followed your own advice in such matters.

[Arindam Banerjee]

I coherently state that energy is continually getting created and destroyed.
As the sun and stars show.
Even an imbecile should be able to understand this.
As Benj cannot he us an idiot.

[whodat]

Still not coherent I see. Too bad. It is, after all, a finite universe
and demanding otherwise is like the little child stamping its feet
while seeking the forbidden cookie. Wishing does not make things so.
Most children learn that, yet you have failed to learn a child's lesson.
Pick one, any one.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Benj's idiocy derives from atavistic robotswinery.

[whodat]

Hey stoopid, using 50 cent words does not in and of itself make for good
logic. Try for content rather than misapplied verbiage.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Benj's IQ is 100 points too low to understand anything I write.

[olli...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 7:47:18 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> Benj's IQ is 100 points too low to understand anything I write.

Perhaps you should try to articulate your points using real scientific principles and observations.

[whodat]

As usual, you have the arithmetic signs backwards.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Neither you nor the whodumbo have any clues about real scientific principles and observations.

The real scientists need courage to admit the new discoveries I have made in the field of physics, and the inventions from same.

Presented in the following links:

Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ

Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ

Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ

Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ

Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ

Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ

Section 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ


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

[whodat]

On 5/31/2020 12:25 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 12:42:26 AM UTC+10, oll...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 7:47:18 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>
>>> Benj's IQ is 100 points too low to understand anything I write.
>>
>> Perhaps you should try to articulate your points using real scientific principles and observations.
>
> Neither you nor the whodumbo have any clues about real scientific principles and observations.
>
> The real scientists need courage to admit the new discoveries I have made in the field of physics, and the inventions from same.

The only ones you consider real scientists are madmen just like you.

Jackass.

Nemo judex in causa sua.

[Arindam Banerjee]

The whodumbo chappie is some dumbarse! A pathetic show of mis-education.


> >

[whodat]

Awwwww, you've been looking in the mirror again.

[Mitch Raemsch]

Roy masters has not solved energy.
You are a fake over free power Roy Masters.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Arindam Banerjee]

Let me try again.
Energy is always getting created and destroyed in the infinite universe.
Before it gets destroyed, we put it to our use.
That is what renewable energy is all about.

Simple, but will not penetrate the minds of the whodumbos and other idiots.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[whodat]

So simple that it is just plain wrong in every way you mention above.

1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

2) The universe cannot be demonstrated to be infinite.

3) Renewable energy is conversion of one type of energy to another, but
in the end all energy available to us on this earth derives from our
sun. Fossil fuels are conserved energy from a distant past. "Renewable"
energy is currently received from the sun.

4) "Renewable" is a misnomer. Our sun, the source for all our energy,
is not renewable.

5) You are the king of idiots around here.

[Arindam Banerjee]

The large heavenly bodies create energy all the time. That energy is dissipated in the infinite universe.
Mass and charge are conserved. Not energy.
The laws of thermodynamics have to go.

> 2) The universe cannot be demonstrated to be infinite.

Hubble does that. More powerful telescopes always show more of the universe. This means the universe is infinite.

>
> 3) Renewable energy is conversion of one type of energy to another, but
> in the end all energy available to us on this earth derives from our
> sun. Fossil fuels are conserved energy from a distant past. "Renewable"
> energy is currently received from the sun.

Renewable energy is simply tapping into energy from heavenly bodies before they get destroyed. In that sense fossil fuel is also renewable when seen as compact stored energy.

>
> 4) "Renewable" is a misnomer. Our sun, the source for all our energy,
> is not renewable.

Our sun has lasted for billions of years.
Suns are created and destroyed like everything else.
Always, mass and charge remain conserved.
Energy changes firm between creation and destruction.

Throw out the bunkum notions of entropy, relativity and quantum.

>
> 5) You are the king of idiots around here.

There, there. Stop foaming at the mouth.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[whodat]

Since you are incapable of understanding that agreement on underlying
definitions is essential to any rational discourse about any topic, you
are clearly not qualified to engage in sane rational discourse.

All your clickety clack typing has been a worthless endeavor, but keep
it up because that keeps you off the streets and out of trouble. That's
the extent of the value of your tripe. Congratulations, some value has
been found after all, just when I lost all hope.

[Sergio]

2cents: Energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into Energy.
Energy dissipated => dissipated as "heat", which is transferred or
dispersed, which if into a huge, or infinte universe, that amount of
Energy is no longer measurable.

>
>> 2) The universe cannot be demonstrated to be infinite.
>
> Hubble does that. More powerful telescopes always show more of the universe. This means the universe is infinite.

2cents: universe cannot be demonstrated to be not infinite either.

>>
>> 3) Renewable energy is conversion of one type of energy to another, but
>> in the end all energy available to us on this earth derives from our
>> sun. Fossil fuels are conserved energy from a distant past. "Renewable"
>> energy is currently received from the sun.
>
> Renewable energy is simply tapping into energy from heavenly bodies before they get destroyed. In that sense fossil fuel is also renewable when seen as compact stored energy.
>>

2cents: there is also nuclear fuel from uranium not from our sun.
Renewable is very misleading, as it leaves out maintenance and
replacement costs

>> 4) "Renewable" is a misnomer. Our sun, the source for all our energy,
>> is not renewable.
>
> Our sun has lasted for billions of years.
> Suns are created and destroyed like everything else.
> Always, mass and charge remain conserved.
> Energy changes firm between creation and destruction.
>
> Throw out the bunkum notions of entropy, relativity and quantum.

2cents: Entropy is a word that has multiple meanings. no need for
relativity, nor quantumn in this thread

>>
>> 5) You are the king of idiots around here.

2cents: Game of ROS idiot Thrones,
AP is clear leader,
olli/sam has clear lead in the number of re-postings of politically
biased physics related social issues
starfarter is disqualified as miss postings to sci.physics
Mitch may be thinking
James McGinn for his imagined Neo-Moistness theory
Where did the Jewish posters go?

[whodat]

IMO all sane, and some insane, people know and understand that

>>> 3) Renewable energy is conversion of one type of energy to another, but
>>> in the end all energy available to us on this earth derives from our
>>> sun. Fossil fuels are conserved energy from a distant past. "Renewable"
>>> energy is currently received from the sun.
>>
>> Renewable energy is simply tapping into energy from heavenly bodies before they get destroyed. In that sense fossil fuel is also renewable when seen as compact stored energy.
>>>
>
> 2cents: there is also nuclear fuel from uranium not from our sun.
> Renewable is very misleading, as it leaves out maintenance and
> replacement costs
>
>>> 4) "Renewable" is a misnomer. Our sun, the source for all our energy,
>>> is not renewable.
>>
>> Our sun has lasted for billions of years.
>> Suns are created and destroyed like everything else.
>> Always, mass and charge remain conserved.
>> Energy changes firm between creation and destruction.
>>
>> Throw out the bunkum notions of entropy, relativity and quantum.

> 2cents: Entropy is a word that has multiple meanings. no need for
> relativity, nor quantumn in this thread

Do you expect Ari to understand or acknowledge that?

>>>
>>> 5) You are the king of idiots around here.
>
>
> 2cents: Game of ROS idiot Thrones,
> AP is clear leader,
> olli/sam has clear lead in the number of re-postings of politically
> biased physics related social issues
> starfarter is disqualified as miss postings to sci.physics
> Mitch may be thinking
> James McGinn for his imagined Neo-Moistness theory
> Where did the Jewish posters go?

Those leaders shift positions frequently. IMO Ari is clearly in the lead
at this moment. But then I very rarely read Archie Poo. In fact it has
been some months since I accidentally clicked on one of his posts. With
the worldwide coverage he has had regarding the craziness of his posts
it is unlikely that he has much readership.

[Sergio]

On 6/1/2020 12:20 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 6/1/2020 11:17 AM, Sergio wrote:

<snip>

> been some months since I accidentally clicked on one of his posts. With
> the worldwide coverage he has had regarding the craziness of his posts
> it is unlikely that he has much readership.

I went over to Google Groups view of Sci.Physics and you can see the
readership there

AP gets 1 or 2 views per post.

olli gets about 2 per post

Google has # of postings per person,

AP 1,419 so far this year
Banjo about 500 this year
Olli about 2,124 this year
Mitch about 900 this year


also the longer the post is up, you get more views, one from Yuri
Creaton back in 2016 got 56 views, someone dredged it up lately.





this would make a nice traffic analysis problem,

who posts a lot, % BS % physics

who reads who, who plonk who

who hangs out with who



but why do that?, any value created, don't think so.

(bet yahoo, gmail, others already have this down good)

[Arindam Banerjee]

I am not the one foaming at the mouth.

> All your clickety clack typing has been a worthless endeavor, but keep
> it up because that keeps you off the streets and out of trouble. That's
> the extent of the value of your tripe. Congratulations, some value has
> been found after all, just when I lost all hope.

Good. Take care.

[whodat]

On 6/1/2020 12:44 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/1/2020 12:20 PM, whodat wrote:
>> On 6/1/2020 11:17 AM, Sergio wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> been some months since I accidentally clicked on one of his posts. With
>> the worldwide coverage he has had regarding the craziness of his posts
>> it is unlikely that he has much readership.
>
>
> I went over to Google Groups view of Sci.Physics and you can see the
> readership there
>
> AP gets 1 or 2 views per post.

MM is one, perhaps Odd the second.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Energy cannot be transformed into mass. Nor can mass into energy.
e=mcc is the biggest scientific hoax ever that has been universally accepted to this day.
The correct mass energy relationship is e=0.5mVVN(N-k) which I found in 1999.
It is a kinetic relationship which explains all energy formations.
Details are in my book "New Approaches towards the Principles of Motion".

> Energy dissipated => dissipated as "heat", which is transferred or
> dispersed, which if into a huge, or infinte universe, that amount of
> Energy is no longer measurable.

Energy is always getting created and destroyed, if we think like traders, as per the formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
Actually electromagnetic forces are formed from large bodies, which become zero at infinity.
When they are arrested and converted to further radiation, then there is work done, or energy used.
Getting rid of the idea of entropy is crucial. It is as best a measure of the energy destroyed, or radiated out into the universe.

>
> >
> >> 2) The universe cannot be demonstrated to be infinite.
> >
> > Hubble does that. More powerful telescopes always show more of the universe. This means the universe is infinite.
>
> 2cents: universe cannot be demonstrated to be not infinite either.

So far it has been demonstrated to be infinite. Our definition of infinity is existence beyond measurement. As we have made bigger telescopes, the universe has become bigger. So it is infinite.

It can be theoretically shown to be infinite, when we all agree that the Newtonian formulas need updating. And that happens when internal force accelerates objects, as I have shown. In which case we get unlimited speed, and unlimited energy, from entities such as protons and electrons, which never die and always exert force. If there are boundaries these forces have to return back, focussed on the return path.

There is no reflection back of the electromagnetic forces generated by the stars in the case of the infinite universe. For a finite universe, they would have to bounce back and create permanent standing waves heating up the whole place.

This is known to the cosmologists, which is why they said that the closed universe had to expand. To "prove" this, they showed galaxies moving further apart. Which is half-true. The half-lie is that half the galaxies are moving towards, as shown in the famous Hubble photograph of distant galaxies. There are about as many redshifts as blueshifts, meaning that as many galaxies are going away from us, so many are coming to us. This clearly shows that the universe is infinite.

>
> >>
> >> 3) Renewable energy is conversion of one type of energy to another, but
> >> in the end all energy available to us on this earth derives from our
> >> sun. Fossil fuels are conserved energy from a distant past. "Renewable"
> >> energy is currently received from the sun.
> >
> > Renewable energy is simply tapping into energy from heavenly bodies before they get destroyed. In that sense fossil fuel is also renewable when seen as compact stored energy.
> >>
>
> 2cents: there is also nuclear fuel from uranium not from our sun.
> Renewable is very misleading, as it leaves out maintenance and
> replacement costs

Nuclear energy is another story. It is renewable in the sense that the uranium becomes plutonium in breeder reactors.
Renewable means solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc. that are formed directly from the Sun and Earth and Moon.

>
> >> 4) "Renewable" is a misnomer. Our sun, the source for all our energy,
> >> is not renewable.
> >
> > Our sun has lasted for billions of years.
> > Suns are created and destroyed like everything else.
> > Always, mass and charge remain conserved.
> > Energy changes firm between creation and destruction.
> >
> > Throw out the bunkum notions of entropy, relativity and quantum.
>
> 2cents: Entropy is a word that has multiple meanings. no need for
> relativity, nor quantumn in this thread

Entropy is a mathematical definition, of the state of disorder caused by the thermodynamic process. It is useful in the design of heat engines. That the entropy of a thermodynamic process is always increasing, is a law of thermodynamics. The issue here is how can a mathematical definition acquire physical dimensions. Instead we should say that energy is getting created and destroyed - in an efficient system the destruction is less. The amount of energy lost is the entropy, for physical significance. But this would mean outing the first law of thermo, which is the conservation of energy.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[whodat]

Oh reslly?

>> All your clickety clack typing has been a worthless endeavor, but keep
>> it up because that keeps you off the streets and out of trouble. That's
>> the extent of the value of your tripe. Congratulations, some value has
>> been found after all, just when I lost all hope.
>
> Good. Take care.

Yes, resigning when you're losing is the best approach.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 6:29:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> I am not the one foaming at the mouth.

Oh, yes you are...

[Arindam Banerjee]

Being resigned to the existence of the negative Einsteinian-Goebbelsian e=mcc=hv virused Blob with its gropings and grabbings, actually. They do serve a purpose, like a whetting stone for superior wit and resulting action.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Sergio]

On 6/1/2020 8:50 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 6/1/2020 12:44 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 6/1/2020 12:20 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2020 11:17 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> been some months since I accidentally clicked on one of his posts. With
>>> the worldwide coverage he has had regarding the craziness of his posts
>>> it is unlikely that he has much readership.
>>
>>
>> I went over to Google Groups view of Sci.Physics and you can see the
>> readership there
>>
>> AP gets 1 or 2 views per post.
>
>
>
>
>
> MM is one, perhaps Odd the second.

wonder if we could figure out the number of people that read the posts
in the newsgroup.

guessing 20 ? perhaps it is close to the number who post in here..

we can find out the number of posters, and % postings they do from
google groups.

on of the reasons they post here is that sci.physics still has a large #
of postings, where other news groups have died off.


I'm trying to think of an analogy, where high quality is pushed out by
cheap volume,

London Flea Markets! most have only cheap china crap in them now, but
used to be high quality antiques and rare items

pond scum...