> and claiming to have become gentleman of
> Fortune does not seem to have sanity for you.

It is sane to not have to follow a mediocre foreign woman as the
supreme leader; and not to worship a treacherous freak (the great-
unca) as the Father of the Nation. It is very sane to give one's
children better opportunities. It is supremely sane to find out
exactly what is wrong with India and the world and express it
poetically as

bin Einstein ban Gandhi

Note1: bin means trash, throw out as rubbish, discard etc
Note2: ban means ban, outlaw, kick out, abolish, etc.

> As for prosperity it has
> not been enough to carry out experiment you demanding other carry out
> to prove your theories of Arindam Physics.

Not yet, but my prosperity has been enough to make me do other more
important things at the personal level. Like raising my family,
securing our economic future, helping my father with his social work,
acting and travelling, having my own house, generally enjoying life,
etc. Hobbies such as physics and writing do not get top priority,
though over the years I have spent many thousands over same in capital
costs, and so far as time and opportunity are concerned, a lot more.
It may be, one day I will recover my investments there with some
interest. Or, maybe not.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

and/or www.mantra.com/jai

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 2:29:45 AM12/15/11

to

Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

A follow-up post:

[ Subject: Re: EINSTEIN - CHARLATAN, FLIM-FLAM MAN OR MAN OF THE
[ CENTURY?
[ From: hummp...@yahoo.com
[ Date: December 27, 1999

>
>
> Einstein - Charlatan,
> Flim-Flam Man Or
> Man Of The Century?
> -From Ralph <ra...@TeamInfinity.com>
>
> http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/einstein
> 12-26-99
>
> Many are convinced that Einstein was in fact WRONG.
>
> We now discover that he stole E=mc2 from an Italian
> scientist, but more importantly, more and more scientists
> are PROVING, despite intense scientific elitism and
> dogmatism, that most if not ALL of what Einstein promoted
> was complete rubbish and balderdash, and has in fact
> caused a retardation in physics, not advances, i.e.
> despite how advanced we now are, we would be far more
> advanced if it were not for this crack pot egomaniac,
> wife abuser, consummate grandstander, confuser of many
> otherwise intelligent people.

It was based on the Maxwell-Lorentz transformation.

But go figure - a jewish magazine TIME - Levine CEO - would select a
Jew to be man of the millenium ...................

End of forwarded post from hummp...@yahoo.com

DMJoshi

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 4:02:43 AM12/15/11

to

Your forefathers did raise their families without leaving India.

You think you have gone one better on them?

Helmut Wabnig

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 10:58:53 AM12/15/11

to

Idiot.
(This may be reposted several times).

w.

Helmut Wabnig

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 10:59:11 AM12/15/11

to

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:29:45 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or

www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

Zinnic

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 11:01:29 AM12/15/11

to

Your fantasy is that dissing your superiors puts you at their level of
intellect or genius.
You make the claim to have discovered what was glaringly obvious.
That is, that the null observation in the MM experiment is consistent
with the ballistic emission theory of light. That was easily
demonstrated by anyone with a knowledge of simple Trigonometry. Only
your lack of scientific rigor allowed you to claim illogically that
this consistency proves the ballistic-theory for light! That C*=C+v.

Consider this. 7 animals are hidden in a barn. This is consistent
with there being 3 sheep, 2 cows, 1 pig and 1 horse in the barn.
However, any variety of animals making a total of 7 would be equally
consistent! For example, 1 duck billed platypus, 1 hippo, 2 prairie
dogs and 3 giant sloths. Choose your own menagerie! Now do you
realise your error?
Zinnic

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 4:26:56 PM12/15/11

to

There is no need to prove how much of an idiot you are. You have
already done enough. Bye-bye.

Zinnic

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 5:27:11 PM12/15/11

to

Proof of my idiocy is as valid as is proof of your formula. Stay on
topic!

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 15, 2011, 8:25:18 PM12/15/11

to

> Proof of my idiocy

is necessary only for those even more idiotic than you.

Zinnic

unread,

Dec 16, 2011, 1:01:41 AM12/16/11

to

On Dec 15, 7:25 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Proof of my idiocy
>
> is necessary only for those even more idiotic than you.

That is as coherent as is your science.
You are very literate. I read your article about death in India. You
write in my native and only language so much better than I am able.
Treasure this, abandon your scientific fallacies and prosper by
concentrating on your literary talent.
Regards
Zinnic

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 16, 2011, 1:14:19 AM12/16/11

to

On Dec 16, 5:01 pm, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 7:25 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > Proof of my idiocy
>
> > is necessary only for those even more idiotic than you.
>
> That is as coherent as is your science.

I agree.

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 16, 2011, 9:07:25 AM12/16/11

to

I take it that the two lines above are your way of throwing in the
towel, two-bit fraud. Usually you invoke divinity and switch gears at
this point. Running a fever today? Or did Lady Kaka, the cut-and-paste
fraudster, finally get you to commune with the spirits of the dearly
departed Gandhi and Einstein?

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 16, 2011, 4:27:01 PM12/16/11

to

On Dec 17, 1:07 am, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

It is true that you are a bigger idiot than Zinnic, malevolent
quotay. That is obvious.
No point in wasting time upon your sordid sorts.

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 17, 2011, 12:16:17 PM12/17/11

to

Then why are you responding to my posts, or even Zinnic's for that
matter? Since your perennial whinge has been that you never get a fair
shake from "einsteinians," why even bother to respond? In the amount of
time you've wasted in "casting pearls" (your words), you could have
worked on improving your chances of peer acceptance by doing
experiments, reconciling the results with your "theory," writing a
"Nobel-winning" paper, ... Yet, you hang around here railing against
everyone, and warming the air invoking "Vedic-Greek-Roman" deities (I
had to put in all three since you are confused by which god is part of
which mythology :-)). Dickens' character Uriah Heep (from David
Copperfield) is an apt description of slime like you. Shouldn't you have
oozed away to India for a vacation by now?

Jos Bergervoet

unread,

Dec 17, 2011, 1:36:01 PM12/17/11

to

On 12/15/2011 8:04 AM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> I posted the following article and comments 12 years ago:

..

> Since newsgroup posts are being removed
> by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
> this post may be reposted several times.

I only see one post here! Do you think the
others have been stolen?!

Please be more careful with your "Arindam
in space" screenplay! We wouldn't want to
lose it..

--
Jos

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 17, 2011, 3:47:29 PM12/17/11

to

On Dec 18, 4:16 am, "Myself Mallu, Yourself?"

To acknowledge the fact that idiots and idliots do exist.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 17, 2011, 10:58:50 PM12/17/11

to

And unfortunately, they do pullulate in top places, to fund
nonsensical einsteinian projects with slimy whining ugly and most mean
gandian perspectives.

Mirza Ghalib

unread,

Dec 17, 2011, 11:52:12 PM12/17/11

to

Anyways, he got the Nobel, you did not.

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 18, 2011, 12:11:25 AM12/18/11

to

Hah! Slimy motherfucker, put my entire rejoinder in, if you have the
balls. Third-rate charlatan, you have no ethics, morals, ... , nothing.
I would have had no problem with it. However, you tried passing yourself
off as a know-it-all with an opinion about everything, and putting down
people - Jew, GujJews, PunJews, ... Yeah, mofo, I'll get in your face
alright.

BTW, you are not funny, motherfucker. Your poetry is no great shakes
either - mostly labored contrived crap. Your bragging about your poetry
does not mean squat. Any big name publishers willing to line up behind
your crap?

Shouldn't you have oozed off to India for a vacation, slimebag?

DMJoshi

unread,

Dec 18, 2011, 3:06:26 AM12/18/11

to

On Dec 17, 8:38 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 5:13 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Anyone on Usenet using quota, allocations unfairly for political gains
> > > > by crushing other priorities and issues for quota rivalry?
>
> > > The newbie kmqw, the cttc se comes to mind.
>
> > Whoever "newbie kmqw, the cttc se" how do they use what quota,
> > allocations unfairly for political gains by crushing other priorities
> > and issues for quota rivalry ?
>
> Jai Maharaj indicates how, in almost every post these days. Bullying,
> basically. Lying, threatening, demeaning, making unprovoked attacks,
> whining when countered, etc.
>
> > >There used to be many
> > > more like that prick, but they have long bitten the usenet dust.
>
> > Arindam being the one still standing?
>
> Evidently. The anti-Arindam forces have scurried off to facebook,
> twitter, etc. if they are not supporting me, as Jai now is.

With what knowledge of Physics is this Jai [Dr Jai Maharaj, Jai Bunder
Maharaj, Sad Monkey] is now supporting you? He has been calling you
Shame of IIT(Indian Institute of Technolgy), called you so thousands
of time. Has he learned Physics since he called you Shame of IIT last?
Truly a fast learner this Jai of yours. He could come up to a level to
appreciate your Physics in how many months. Latest "'Shame of IIT' and
fraud Arindam Banerjee" from him dates
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:03:25 GMT
Local: Wed, Nov 16 2011 12:03 am

So your Jai (previously jBm and other names) has learned Physics to
appreciate you in not months but days in fact 29 days. What shall we
call him शतावधानी (One who learns hundred things simultaneously )
सहस्रावधानी (One who learns thousand things simultaneously ) लचावधानी
(One who learns hundred thousand things simultaneously ) कोट्यवधानी
(One who learns ten million things simultaneously ) अब्जावधानी (One
who learns ten billion things simultaneously) खर्वावधानी (One who
learns ten trillion things simultaneously). What?

> And yet nobody nominates him for
>
> > Nobel Prize.
>
> Life offers other far more valuable prizes.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all

> time, sole god among lotsa devils

> c(v=V)=c(mu,ep)+V
> e=0.5mVVN(N-k)

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 18, 2011, 6:26:27 AM12/18/11

to

Which means so much, to those who have not had to design and develop
radiating elements, impedance match them, and position them with
appropriate amplitude and phase feeds in various sorts of radar
antennas. Persons who do all that are few, and they have no use for
such Nobel laureates whose works are never even mentioned in radiation
literature.

It was out of concern for the negative effects of such unthinking
attitudes that you show, that Sartre refused to accept the Nobel
Prize. Probably that makes him the most honest and genuine person in
the 20th century.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 18, 2011, 5:48:01 AM12/18/11

to

On Dec 18, 7:06 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 8:38 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 5:13 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Anyone on Usenet using quota, allocations unfairly for political gains
> > > > > by crushing other priorities and issues for quota rivalry?
>
> > > > The newbie kmqw, the cttc se comes to mind.
>
> > > Whoever "newbie kmqw, the cttc se" how do they use what quota,
> > > allocations unfairly for political gains by crushing other priorities
> > > and issues for quota rivalry ?
>
> > Jai Maharaj indicates how, in almost every post these days. Bullying,
> > basically. Lying, threatening, demeaning, making unprovoked attacks,
> > whining when countered, etc.
>
> > > >There used to be many
> > > > more like that prick, but they have long bitten the usenet dust.
>
> > > Arindam being the one still standing?
>
> > Evidently. The anti-Arindam forces have scurried off to facebook,
> > twitter, etc. if they are not supporting me, as Jai now is.
>
> With what knowledge of Physics is this Jai [Dr Jai Maharaj, Jai Bunder
> Maharaj, Sad Monkey] is now supporting you? He has been calling you
> Shame of IIT(Indian Institute of Technolgy), called you so thousands
> of time.

Yes. But now that he is supporting me, all that abuse has become off
the mark, irrelevant, obviously wrong, etc. Which is good.

> Has he learned Physics since he called you Shame of IIT last?

He never criticised my physics. He was saying that since I bunked
some classes, I did not deserve my Masters degree in Computer Science
from IIT Delhi and as some ones must have given my proxy in the class,
I had got that degree by fraud. Apart from showing zero understanding
about how higher degrees are obtained in IIT-D, Jai did not prove
anything, of course, in that matter.

> Truly a fast learner this Jai of yours.

Indeed. I wish the less evil sort of einsteinians could be so fast as
to unlearn their fraudulent physics and adopt my new physics.

He could come up to a level to
> appreciate your Physics in how many months. Latest "'Shame of IIT' and
> fraud Arindam Banerjee" from him dates
> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:03:25 GMT
> Local: Wed, Nov 16 2011 12:03 am
>
> So your Jai (previously jBm and other names) has learned Physics to
> appreciate you in not months but days in fact 29 days.

It takes less than 29 minutes for any reasonable and intelligent human
being to learn the basics of my new physics. Some can do it in 10
minutes.

What shall we
> call him शतावधानी (One who learns hundred things simultaneously )
> सहस्रावधानी (One who learns thousand things simultaneously ) लचावधानी
> (One who learns hundred thousand things simultaneously ) कोट्यवधानी
> (One who learns ten million things simultaneously ) अब्जावधानी (One

> who learns ten billion things simultaneously) खर्वावधानी (One who
> learns ten trillion things simultaneously). What?
>
>
>
> > And yet nobody nominates him for
>
> > > Nobel Prize.
>
> > Life offers other far more valuable prizes.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> > time, sole god among lotsa devils
> > c(v=V)=c(mu,ep)+V

> > e=0.5mVVN(N-k)-

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 18, 2011, 10:49:57 AM12/18/11

to

But Sartre was an existentialist and rejected the prize because it would
curb his freedom. Doesn't existentialism kind of clash with your (mostly
phony) belief in a good creator and your own (self-proclaimed) divinity?
How about a nice post from you railing against Sartre (or even
Kierkegaard or Nietzsche)? Existentialist bunglers, the lot. Shouldn't
you admire Schopenhauer? ;-)

PS: None of this has to do with Roman or Greek mythology, mythologies
that often confuses you. Do seek "divine guidance" (preferably Vedic)
before you unload your usual drivel here.

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

DMJoshi

unread,

Don't worry. I have enough to do, I lead a very busy life and thinking
about those useless people is only for fun.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 19, 2011, 6:30:01 AM12/19/11

to

As anyone should, with such increased knowledge of the great-unca's
black deeds as is possible today with Internet. What the corrupt
print media could highlight or suppress as per their patrons'
interests, does not work with such openness.

unread,

Dec 19, 2011, 8:30:27 AM12/19/11

to

On 12/18/2011 11:01 AM, DMJoshi wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:48 am, Arindam Banerjee<adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 7:06 pm, DMJoshi<josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So your Jai (previously jBm and other names) has learned Physics to
>>> appreciate you in not months but days in fact 29 days.
>>
>> It takes less than 29 minutes for any reasonable and intelligent human
>> being to learn the basics of my new physics. Some can do it in 10
>> minutes.
>
> You must be pretty pleased that now you have disciple who has
> mastered your
>
> c(v=V)=c(mu,ep)+V
> e=0.5mVVN(N-k)-
>
> in minutes.
>
> Is Jai Maharaj (jBm) going to fend you from questions about your
> Physics now particularly when you have chosen to remain silent about
> it?
>

The Cow of Hawaii, aka Lady Kaka, aka The Muckeraj, only cuts and
pastes. The pretentious fraud cannot answer any questions about anything.

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 19, 2011, 8:36:46 AM12/19/11

to

Hah, there it is - the "Divine Assistance" bit. As a self-proclaimed
"divine being" (God among lotsa evil, as you put it), do I take this to
mean "self assistance" (the essence of "internal force")? Yup, the
engine is propelled by self-created hot air (invoking Agni and Vayu -
Vedic deities, not Greco-Roman :-)).

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 19, 2011, 8:52:57 AM12/19/11

to

Case of sour grapes?

>> Sartre and more recently, Le Duc Tho were both offered the Nobel.
>> I do not know much about the former, but I salute Tho for refusing
>> the honor. His counterpart, the devil incarnate Kissinger, the war
>> criminal in Hitchen's words, did accept the award.
>>
>> Einstein got his Nobel for Photoelectricity. His special theory was
>> still a subject of intense debate when he got it. It was finally
>> affirmed
>> by scores of scientists later. True, his attempt to formulate a
>> general
>> theory did not end successfully, because he disavowed statistical
>> intrusion. But whatever he did was remarkable. He does not deserve
>> your condemnation
>
> Einstein does not deserve my condemnation for being the greatest
> bungler of all time. People like you do. As they ignore how I have
> proved e=mcc to be absolute nonsense using infallible deductive logic.
>

Nobody gives a rat about "infallible deductive logic", or whether you
pulled a formula out of a body cavity (with or without "Divine
Assistance"). Do you have experimental data to conclusively prove your
theory? With your theory can you reinterpret a great body of
experimental work that has shown Einstein to be correct in more ways
than one? Can you show how some of these expensive and carefully-crafted
experiments were poorly/wrongly designed? Can your theory really open up
new vistas in experimental physics and lead to a new explanation of the
physical universe? From the sheer amount of drivel you've unloaded here,
the answer to all these questions is a resounding NO.

To use your own condescending tone and sneer, here goes. Since your
background is in engineering/comp. sci., you do not have the competence
to judge anything in physics beyond the standard undergrad stuff or to
do anything substantive in physics. Join a real physics department
(preferably in the US or Western Europe), do real physics experiments,
earn a real physics Ph.D., and maybe win a real physics Nobel Prize.
Until then, babbling moron, shut your yap!

> Arindam Banerjee

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 19, 2011, 9:09:25 AM12/19/11

to

On 12/19/2011 4:22 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> So when the incompetent start to judge things, they invite ridicule
> unless they are in top positions. Being incompetent, they cannot
> understand the idiotic points of one party, so they go by the
> established biases. Especially when these biases suit their political
> or personal situation. All this is very understandable.

unread,

unread,

Dec 20, 2011, 2:42:52 AM12/20/11

to

Looks like, the diagrams are more or less okay. Should not confuse
too much. I understand that this article is beyond the scope of most,
but it is the best I could do! Actually the complexity is a lot less
here than most technical engineering papers.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 20, 2011, 3:13:49 AM12/20/11

unread,

Dec 20, 2011, 10:16:49 AM12/20/11

to

Whatever! You are about as honest as Lady Kaka. Are IIT standards really
that low that they produce more charlatans than any other school in
India? Lady Kaka is an intellectual fraud. Period. Now you have one
fraud scratching the back of another.

> I have talked to many many people in usenet over the years, and always
> had the final say, unless they were idiotic or idliotic. My work has
> thus gone through the ordeals of fire.
>

Ordeals of fire? You're given to hyperbole, aren't you? Idiot, be
thankful that your crap is getting more attention than it deserves.

> Not just here, but also among my colleagues at work and those of my
> classmates in IIT Kharagpur, who all now at the peaks of their
> careers. No one among literally hundreds of the most qualified
> engineers and scientists I have studied and worked with have found any
> logical fault in my work. My work has been evaluated by PhDs in
> physics, and as a result of their review it has been given notice in
> the international media and an article in print that showed the
> derivation and philosophy underlying my new formula linking mass and
> energy has been published in the science section of an Indian
> magazine, Outlook. I have received many favourable calls after that
> publication. Those against it, had nothing but bile - they gave no
> rebuttal to my derivation, just chose to abuse me. Hoping thus, that
> personal attacks will crush me. Did not happen, though.
>

Holy crap! Outlook India is a news magazine and not a scientific
peer-reviewed archival journal. I provided the link to the Indian
Academy of Science and asked you to get one of the "literally hundreds
of qualified engineers and scientists" to vouch for your work, and
communicate it to the journal "Pramana". You have not attempted that
because you know you are a cowardly fraud, or perhaps because you know
the "literally hundreds of friends" are going to bail when push comes to
shove.

Your "derivation" is beyond pathetic and giving it a rebuttal would be
really demeaning to any self-respecting physicist. Join a real physics
department and do real work in physics instead of warming the air here.
In the 2-3 years that you've bored most people with death with your
crap, you could have done some real experimental work instead of wanking
with your "deductive logic." (ranks up there with the "secondary and
tertiary meanings in a Sanskrit dictionary" fraudulence you pulled a
while back). But everybody else is blame but your saintly self, right?

Narcissistic condescending bastard, your ego needs to be deflated big time.

> But I still say, that this work needs to be completed with suitable
> experiments that are presently beyond my scope. They all agree to
> that. I agree with them. There is thus no dispute at the genuine
> science and engineering levels. Unfotunately, these are not the sorts
> of people who have the money and power to help me, as engineers do not
> rule the world, einsteinian conpersons do that - so things are in a
> state of stasis.
>

Physics is not a personality cult, no matter how much you try to portray
it that way, or how many times you push the idea. You can still work
outside the "mainstream" (which is an anathema to you), and still get a
fair shake as long as you put in some real honest sweat. But no, lazy
asshole, your goddamn brain is in stasis. You are unwilling to do
anything but repeat the same shit a hundred times a day, putting down
all and sundry that don't agree with you as establishment clowns. So
much for your objectivity, eh? You do need a healthy dose of reality,
and trust me, Lady Kaka, a third-rate cut and paste artist without one
original goddamn thought, isn't the one to give you that dose.

Third-rate charlatan, you are nothing but a publicity hound and a con
artist. For you to link up with a creep like Lady Kaka is a case of
"birds of a feather".

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Dec 20, 2011, 10:17:38 AM12/20/11

to

How very touching. Not!

Interesting that in your one-line reply no divinity (Greek, Roman,
Vedic, self) was invoked, Einstein and Gandhi weren't bashed, ...
Running a fever today, bangdu? Or did Lady Kaka send you some
extra-special astrological (cow)dungpowder to fire up the inphernal
phorce injun?

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 20, 2011, 4:33:23 PM12/20/11

to

> ...
>
> read more

Good, looks like my debunking of all the e=mcc nonsense is once again
passed by the entire world, as it is so placed before them since 2005.
Cheers, and all of you have a great time in the festive season, and
may the New Year bring joy to everyone.
Arindam Banerjee

and/or www.mantra.com/jai

unread,

Dec 20, 2011, 5:59:37 PM12/20/11

to

In article <e73dcf89-d3a6-49ad...@v31g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> On Dec 20, 6:42=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > Looks like, the diagrams are more or less okay. =A0Should not confuse
> > too much. =A0I understand that this article is beyond the scope of most,
> > but it is the best I could do! =A0Actually the complexity is a lot less

> > here than most technical engineering papers.
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> >

> > On Dec 20, 6:39=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 20, 5:14=A0pm, Mirza Ghalib <lms...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 18, 11:32=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Dec 19, 4:52=A0pm, Mirza Ghalib <lms...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 18, 3:26=A0am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > > > On Dec 18, 3:52=A0pm, Mirza Ghalib <lms...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Anyways, he got the Nobel, you did not.
> >

> > > > > > > Which means so much, to those who have not had to design and de=

> velop
> > > > > > > radiating elements, impedance match them, and position them with
> > > > > > > appropriate amplitude and phase feeds in various sorts of radar

> > > > > > > antennas. =A0Persons who do all that are few, and they have no =
> use for
> > > > > > > such Nobel laureates whose works are never even mentioned in ra=
> diation
> > > > > > > literature.
> >
> > > > > > > It was out of concern for the negative effects of such unthinki=
> ng
> > > > > > > attitudes that you show, that Sartre refused to accept the Nobe=
> l
> > > > > > > Prize. =A0Probably that makes him the most honest and genuine p=

> erson in
> > > > > > > the 20th century.
> >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > > > > > You accept or decline an honor, only after it has been offered
> > > > > > to you. You were not offered.
> >
> > > > > > Sartre and more recently, Le Duc Tho were both offered the Nobel.

> > > > > > I do not know much about the former, but I salute Tho for refusin=
> g
> > > > > > the honor. His counterpart, the devil incarnate Kissinger, the wa=
> r
> > > > > > criminal in Hitchen's words, =A0did accept the award.
> >
> > > > > > Einstein got his Nobel for Photoelectricity. His special theory w=

> as
> > > > > > still a subject of intense debate when he got it. It was finally
> > > > > > affirmed
> > > > > > by scores of scientists later.
> >

> > > > > That does not mean that his theory was correct. =A0Repeating the sa=

> me
> > > > > mistake thousands of times does not make it correct.
> >
> > > > > True, his attempt to formulate a
> >
> > > > > > general
> > > > > > theory did not end successfully, because he disavowed statistical

> > > > > > intrusion. But whatever he did was remarkable. He does not deserv=

> e
> > > > > > your condemnation.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > Asking very politely, have you pointed out Einstein's errors
> > > > to the scientific world through a paper, or in a technical
> > > > colloquium?
> >

> > > Yes. =A0Back in 2005 I published the errors involved in the analysis of
> > > the MMI experiment. =A0On and off, I have mentioned it. =A0It is presen=
> t
> > > in Usenet. =A0I am reproducing the article below. If you are interested

> > > you can follow all the links in google groups with keywords such as
> > > Michelson Morley Arindam Banerjee Einstein.
> >
> > > I hold that Usenet discussions on science are at least as valid as

> > > held in any other fora. =A0For anyone can take part in it. =A0It is the

> > > most public way to analyse any matter, since any one can take part.
> > > There is no compulsion, no holding back save for those who have
> > > something to hide, such as their real identities.
> >
> > > ****
> >
> > > The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, with its famously
> > > unexpected null results, is the sole source and also remains the core
> > > hard undeniable scientific evidence for the theories of relativity.
> > > One of the outstanding features about this experiment is that it is
> > > simple in concept, and has been done with painstaking efforts by many
> > > scientists.
> > > In this article, I will quote exhaustively from a textbook (details
> > > below) about the nature and philosophical background behind this
> > > experiment and will pinpoint the great blunder that was made in the

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > 5-1 =A0Consider the interpretations of physical events that might be
> > > made
> > > by a person of high IQ born and brought up on =A0a merry-go-round. =A0H=
> e
> > > would experience a force somewhat like the force of gravity. =A0It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > only .0001 times the velocity of light; so it is evident that a very
> > > sensitive
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more
>

> Good, looks like my debunking of all the e=3Dmcc nonsense is once again

> passed by the entire world, as it is so placed before them since 2005.
> Cheers, and all of you have a great time in the festive season, and
> may the New Year bring joy to everyone.
> Arindam Banerjee

Perhaps your experiments will be conducted in 2012.
Enjoy your trip back to Bharat Mata!

Zinnic

unread,

Dec 21, 2011, 1:16:57 PM12/21/11

to

I am posting this above your long ranting nonsensical thesis so that
my criticism does not get lost below it.

You are unable to comprehend the analogy of the river flow
(luminiferous ether) and fixed floats (Earth). Relatively, the Earth
moves through the ether or the ether flows past the Earth. Each is
relatively EQUIVALENT to the other but in neither case does the river
represent the Earth!
If you insist that the river represents the Earth, then allowing the
floats to freely float with the river makes them represent part of the
moving Earth and make the river bed and banks represent the static
ether. You have left the poor swimmer no option but to "swim" on the
moving Earth (river) and you have eliminated all reference to the
ether ( river bed/ bank).
That is a serious flaw in your "analogy" of freely floating floats. It
is the same as a walker pacing out the lateral and longitudinal
dimensions of a square raft floating down a river. The time to walk
at a speed of C along or across a square raft of side L will be L/C
no matter the speed of the river. The same applies to any type of
transportation.
Change the analogy to a raft (Earth) moving over a lake (luminiferous
ether) in which both the raft (Earth) and the swimmer (light) move
through the water/ lake (static ether) and you will realize that your
discombobulation is but 'sound and fury, signifying NOTHING'.
Zinnic

and/or www.mantra.com/jai

unread,

Dec 21, 2011, 4:37:54 PM12/21/11

to

In article <1e22b683-0423-4401...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
>>

>>>>>>>>> By binning Einstein and banning Gandhi, we regain sanity and
>>>>>>>>> prosperity.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>
>>>> Then why are you responding to my posts, or even Zinnic's for that
>>>> matter?
>>
>>> To acknowledge the fact that idiots and idliots do exist.
>
> - very abusive ratshit from the quotay deleted, for health reasons -
>
> Unlike idiots, idliots turn out to be ultra-abusive pricks. As
> evidenced by the foul stench from the foul-mouthed k-mqw, that cttc
> se.
>
> But even these wretches deserve attention for who knows what purpose
> they serve by their existence?

They provide the contrast many find essential in learning to
distinguish between the desirable and the undesirable.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

-----

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
A goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries to do away with
opposition.

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri) <KalluM...@gmail.com>
tries his best to be a bully -- telling others what and when to post,
where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 21, 2011, 5:15:03 PM12/21/11

to

Why should I change the analogy, when the authors of the standard
textbook did not??

In their very correct and most standard analogy:

the static river bank is the aether
the moving river is the earth moving through or past the aether
the swimmer is as the light - moving faster downstream with the
current, and slower against the current

Only problem was that they kept the float fixed to the bed, that is to
say, stuck to the aether and that is ridiculous and the original and
most subtle source of all the mad and evil relativistic nonsense.

When it is realised that the floats float with the moving river, all
misunderstandings will be resolved and e=mcc will crumble like a house
of cards.

Efforts by the einsteinians to change the established analogy to
something else, are just pathetic.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

> Zinnic

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 21, 2011, 6:49:57 PM12/21/11

to

To clarify, this analogy when extended to the MMI experiment would
mean that while the earth would move on, the MMI apparatus would
remain stuck in the aether!

>
> When it is realised that the floats float with the moving river, all
> misunderstandings will be resolved and e=mcc will crumble like a house
> of cards.
>
> Efforts by the einsteinians to change the established analogy to
> something else, are just pathetic.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee.
>
>
>

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

DMJoshi

unread,

Dec 22, 2011, 2:59:57 AM12/22/11

to

Don't you pride yourself being THE revolutionary of Physics and
Engineering?

Zinnic

unread,

Dec 22, 2011, 8:10:20 AM12/22/11

to

Wrong on both counts (see below)

> the swimmer is as the light - moving faster downstream with the
> current, and slower against the current

You claim the river is the Earth! How could the swimmers (light)
'swim' thru the Earth. You are destroying their analogy

> Only problem was that they kept the float fixed to the bed, that is to
> say, stuck to the aether and that is ridiculous and the original and
> most subtle source of all the mad and evil relativistic nonsense.
>
> When it is realised that the floats float with the moving river, all
> misunderstandings will be resolved and e=mcc will crumble like a house
> of cards.
>
> Efforts by the einsteinians to change the established analogy to
> something else, are just pathetic.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee.
>
>

> I Also if the river represents the Earth, how could the river (Earth) have a velocity of v relative to the Earth ( see caps above)? from your post and capitalize for emphasis

> 5-3 A device of sufficient sensitivity was made and used in the United
> States by Michelson and Morley in 1887. The principle of their
> apparatus is brought out by the following analogy.
> Suppose two equally fast swimmers undertake a race in a river between
> floats anchored to the river bed.
> (Arindam's note: please note the expression - "floats anchored to
> the river bed" meaning that they are stuck to the ground, or the
> inertial frame of reference. Also let us mutter here, with Galileo,
> that the earth, it moves!)
> _____________________River Bank______________________
> C
> Speed of river -> v
>
> Same distance L lies between A and C, and A and D.
> Speed of swimmer with respect to the water is c.
> A D
> ______________________River Bank_______________________
> Two equal courses, each having a total length 2L, are laid out from the
> starting point, float A. One course is AD, parallel to the flow of the
> river relative to the earth, and the other AC, perpendicular to it.

> How will the times compare if each of the swimmers goes out and back >on his course? LET THE SPEED OF EACH SWIMMER RELATIVE TO THE WATER BE C, AND LET THE WATER DRIFT OR VELOCITY WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH BE V.
> When the swimmer on the parallel course goes downstream, his >velocity will add to that of the water, giving him a resultant velocity of >(c+v) with respect to the earth. The time required for him to swim the

> distance L from A to D is L/(c+v). On his return, he must overcome
>the water drift. His net velocity then is (c-v), and his return time is
> L/(c-v). His total time is the sum of these two times. This is given

> by.......

If as you insist that the authors' meant for the river to represent
the Earth, then their analogy has the swimmers (light) swimming
through dry land (Earth) rather than the aether and the floats fixed
to the aether rather than the Earth. You yourself claim that float
markers fixed to the aether is ridiculous. Also if the river
represents the Earth, how could the river (Earth) have a velocity of v
relative to the Earth (see caps above)?

Cut the nonsense and admit that you have misinterpreted the authors'
analogy in which the river is the aether in relative motion to the
floats which, fixed to the river bed,represent the earth at relative
rest.

I state again, your misinterpretation of Newtonian relativity is the
elementary error that is the sole foundation of your hysterical rants
against the giants of science.
Zinnic
>
>
>
>
> > Zinnic

DMJoshi

unread,

Dec 22, 2011, 8:57:03 AM12/22/11

to

Looks you have finally nailed this Living God, the Greatest Genius of
All Times.

You may have done service to his family. The may save himself from
going totally nuts if he thanks you and forgets the flight of fancy he
engaged himself in over 20 years.

Zinnic

unread,

Dec 23, 2011, 9:16:31 AM12/23/11

to

Read your own words in your post about the analogy presented by the
authors' of a Physics textbook dated 1956.

LET THE SPEED OF EACH SWIMMER RELATIVE TO THE WATER BE C, AND LET THE
WATER DRIFT OR VELOCITY WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH BE V.

That is, the swimmer swims thru the river water analogous to light
being 'transmitted thru the postulated aether. The river water drift
(current) is analogous to the speed of the aether relative to the
Earth at rest.

If the river represented the Earth as you claim, then the last
sentence in the above would mean that the Earth (water drift) has a
velocity of V with respect to the Earth itself.
For your sake, I hope this helps
Zinnic

P.S. When you accept that in the authors' analogy the floats are fixed
to the Earth (and the river is the Earth) "all your misunderstandings
will be resolved and e=0.5mVVN(N-k) will crumble like a house of
cards."
"Efforts by anti-einsteinians to change the established analogy to

something else, are just pathetic.

Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. Stick to fiction!
Zinnic

Zinnic

unread,

Dec 23, 2011, 9:43:45 AM12/23/11

to

> Cheers Arindam Banerjee. Stick to fiction!
> Zinnic

Correction- (and the river is NOT the Earth). It IS the postulated
luminiferous Aether

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Jan 1, 2012, 11:49:31 PM1/1/12

to

Okay. The Earth above is the riverbank, riverbed, etc.

> That is, the swimmer swims thru the river water analogous to light
> being 'transmitted thru the postulated aether.

Yes.

>The river water drift
> (current) is analogous to the speed of the aether relative to the
> Earth at rest.

Here is the main problem with you, and the other Einsteinans, that
always was. SEEMING IS NOT THE REAL THING NECESSARILY. The aether by
definition is at complete rest. All particles of aether by definition
never move. All objects move through aether. So there is no such
thing as speed of aether, as aether never moves. Everything moves
through aether.

Just as the riverbank does not move with respect to the flowing
water. It is the flowing water that moves past the fixed riverbank.
No one says that the riverbank is flowing past the static river.

I hope honest relativists (if any around) get this important point.
What is seeming, is not actuality. True, if we go on any boat, the
objects on the bank will *seem* to move, but in actuality they are
fixed in their own places and it is the boat that is moving.

It is interesting to see how desperate the need is to put the Earth at
rest! How Aristotleian! For several centuries, the Aristotleians had
the complete upper hand, and they constructed nice theologies based
upon the central view of the Earth at rest. Evidently einsteinism is
a throwback to those happy days for the corrupt parasitical elites,
aristotleism in a different garb!

But the plain fact is that as Galileo said, the Earth it moves!
Nothing can be done about that! Even though the Sun and the stars
all *seem* to move around the Earth, they do not actually do so.

> If the river represented the Earth as you claim,

I don't claim it, I merely repeat the analogy of those who tried to
prove e=mcc nonsense using that analogy and made a bungle as I pointed
out.

then the last
> sentence in the above would mean that the Earth (water drift) has a
> velocity of V with respect to the Earth itself.

Please try to understand what I have written, if you can, instead of
writing nonsense. The water drift (moving river) is analogous to the
Earth moving past the riverbank (Earth) which is analogous to the
aether. The aether is a solid very fine medium pervading the entire
universe, this medium carrying electromagnetic waves just as air is
the medium carrying sound waves, or water the medium carrying water
waves. All objects move through this static fine highly elastic
medium, this aether - by definition and as proof through the existince
of electromagnetic radiation.

> For your sake, I hope this helps

It did help me to clarify certain points here in this post, that I had
made earlier in my usenet postings on this subject.

btw, I met some very old classmates recently, known each other since
1973. Told them about all this stuff, and they were highly
enthusiastic! "We shall overcome - o deep in my heart, I have this
conviction, we shall overcome one day!"

Cheers,

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

time, sole god among lotsa devils.
c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)

> Zinnic

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Jan 1, 2012, 11:52:09 PM1/1/12

to

Absolutely correct. But the established dogma has to be exposed first
of all. It is necessary to do that, in order to show what it really
is, how it is totally wrong, and then, what is the better and more
satisfying alternative theory.

Cheers,
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils.
c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
>
>
>

> > In their very correct and most standard analogy:
>
> > the static river bank is the aether
> > the moving river is the earth moving through or past the aether
> > the swimmer is as the light - moving faster downstream with the
> > current, and slower against the current
>
> > Only problem was that they kept the float fixed to the bed, that is to
> > say, stuck to the aether and that is ridiculous and the original and
> > most subtle source of all the mad and evil relativistic nonsense.
>
> > When it is realised that the floats float with the moving river, all
> > misunderstandings will be resolved and e=mcc will crumble like a house
> > of cards.
>
> > Efforts by the einsteinians to change the established analogy to

> > something else, are just pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Jan 1, 2012, 11:58:33 PM1/1/12

to

Ridiculous.

>
> > the swimmer is as the light - moving faster downstream with the
> > current, and slower against the current
>
> You claim the river is the Earth!

The moving river is analogous to the Earth moving through aether.

How could the swimmers (light)
> 'swim' thru the Earth. You are destroying their analogy

The Earth is analogous to the aether in the analogy.

To repeat:
swimmer -> light
moving river -> Earth
riverbank/riverbed -> aether

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

DMJoshi

unread,

Jan 2, 2012, 1:22:31 AM1/2/12

to

On Jan 2, 4:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22 2011, 6:59 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 10:15 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 22, 5:16 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Change the analogy to a raft (Earth) moving over a lake (luminiferous
> > > > ether) in which both the raft (Earth) and the swimmer (light) move
> > > > through the water/ lake (static ether) and you will realize that your
> > > > discombobulation is but 'sound and fury, signifying NOTHING'.
>
> > > Why should I change the analogy, when the authors of the standard
> > > textbook did not??
>
> > Don't you pride yourself being THE revolutionary of Physics and
> > Engineering?
>
> Absolutely correct. But the established dogma has to be exposed first
> of all. It is necessary to do that, in order to show what it really
> is, how it is totally wrong, and then, what is the better and more
> satisfying alternative theory.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
> time, sole god among lotsa devils.
> c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V
> e=0.5mVVN(N-k)

Was it 1956 Text Book you followed as Zinnic wrote? Almost the year
you were born. Is 1956 Text Book the last word in Physics? They still
use it in Australia?

Myself Mallu, Yourself?

unread,

Jan 2, 2012, 3:29:52 AM1/2/12

to

On 1/1/2012 8:49 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> btw, I met some very old classmates recently, known each other since
> 1973. Told them about all this stuff, and they were highly
> enthusiastic! "We shall overcome - o deep in my heart, I have this
> conviction, we shall overcome one day!"
>

Setting aside the "enthusiasm" and the "we shall overcome" bits, is
there anyone in this bunch of "enthusiastic" old classmates that would
take up cudgels on your behalf, and communicate your "research" (backed
by "deductive logic" and sans experimental data) to the Indian Academy
of Sciences? I am not talking about communicating your "research" to
Indian dailies, or shouting at street corners.

Have you told them that you have acute vitamin M deficiency as well. The
mention of coin could dampen the enthusiasm and leave you with a
cold-air transmission network and reduced "internal force."

--
VB, Ubetjotushy
'ome=shanty

Szczepan Bialek

unread,

Jan 2, 2012, 4:04:22 AM1/2/12

to

"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3e191fe3-1fef-487d...@c42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

>
>Please try to understand what I have written, if you can, instead of
writing nonsense. The water drift (moving river) is analogous to the
Earth moving past the riverbank (Earth) which is analogous to the
aether. The aether is a solid very fine medium pervading the entire
universe,

It is the very old idea from 1821: "" In 1817, Young had proposed a small
transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
He proposed the aether drag hypothesis to explain a lack of variation in
astronomical observations." Z; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

> this medium carrying electromagnetic waves just as air is
the medium carrying sound waves, or water the medium carrying water
waves.

In air are the Young's waves.

> All objects move through this static fine highly elastic
medium, this aether - by definition and as proof through the existince
of electromagnetic radiation.

For Faraday and Tesla the Young's waves are the electron waves.

In the textbooks are the Fresnel- Heaviside's waves (TEM).
S*