(especially) For Arindam Banerjee....(about Einstein)
Art Sowers
An article in Financial Times, Oct 14, 2010, page 4:
title: "Visionary who warned of bank practices that brought crises"
by Phil Davison
Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
Arindam, you might like these two paragraphs in the middle of the article.
"Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
and
"He invented a 'paraconical' pendulum to study gravity and found that,
during solar eclipses, the pendulum speeded up slightly. He said it was a
phenomenon 'quite inexplicable within the framework of the
currently-accepted theories' and suggested a possible flaw in Einstein's
theory. A majority of physicists believe the so-called Allais Effect is
inconclusive."
---
The rest of the article (I will type quotes later) was mainly devoted to
the guys genius, that he got the Nobel prize in economics in 1988 (so he
is not a nut-case), and he forsaw all these economic problems we have now
on Wall Street.
Arindam Banerjee
> An article in Financial Times, Oct 14, 2010, page 4:
>
> title: "Visionary who warned of bank practices that brought crises"
> by Phil Davison
>
> Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
>
> Arindam, you might like these two paragraphs in the middle of the article.
Thanks for the attention, dear Art.
>
> "Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
> Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
> relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
> Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
I am not interested in modern crappy theories like relativity and
quantum, dear Straydoggie. The former always looked fishy even when I
read it as a teenager, and the latter's nonsense I discarded when I
actually made radiating elements like dipoles, monopoles, horn
antennas, helical antennas, cone antennas radiate by mechancially
tweaking them with my own not-fair hands.
The Great Goddess blessed me when I came upon the correct mathematical
equation that relates mass with energy, on a kinetic basis. That
elevates all physics, and gives enormous scope for the future. And
always thanks to the most gracious Goddess Saraswati, I am still
around to explain them on a musical and ironic basis, to please Her.
Glory to Them!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Art Sowers
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Oct 18, 11:48 pm, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> An article in Financial Times, Oct 14, 2010, page 4:
>>
>> title: "Visionary who warned of bank practices that brought crises"
>> by Phil Davison
>>
>> Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
>>
>> Arindam, you might like these two paragraphs in the middle of the article.
>
> Thanks for the attention, dear Art.
>>
>> "Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
>> Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
>> relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
>> Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
>
> I am not interested in modern crappy theories like relativity and
> quantum, dear Straydoggie.
So you didn't notice that Allais did this experiment that "suggested
weakness" in Einstein's theory? I would have thought you would welcome any
additional doubters of Einstein!
mpc755
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 11:48 pm, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
> >> An article in Financial Times, Oct 14, 2010, page 4:
>
> >> title: "Visionary who warned of bank practices that brought crises"
> >> by Phil Davison
>
> >> Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
>
> >> Arindam, you might like these two paragraphs in the middle of the article.
>
> > Thanks for the attention, dear Art.
>
> >> "Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
> >> Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
> >> relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
> >> Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
>
> > I am not interested in modern crappy theories like relativity and
> > quantum, dear Straydoggie.
>
> So you didn't notice that Allais did this experiment that "suggested
> weakness" in Einstein's theory? I would have thought you would welcome any
> additional doubters of Einstein!
>
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter experts force towards the matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
During a solar eclipse the Earth, Moon, and Sun align and there is
less force exerted by the Earth's displaced aether on the
'paraconical' pendulum which allows the pendulum to speed up slightly.
This does not show weakness in relativity. What it shows is an
inability to understand what occurs physically in nature to cause
gravity.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
aether's state of displacement. The cause which conditions its
state is its displacement by matter.
Arindam Banerjee
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 11:48 pm, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
> >> An article in Financial Times, Oct 14, 2010, page 4:
>
> >> title: "Visionary who warned of bank practices that brought crises"
> >> by Phil Davison
>
> >> Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
>
> >> Arindam, you might like these two paragraphs in the middle of the article.
>
> > Thanks for the attention, dear Art.
>
> >> "Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
> >> Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
> >> relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
> >> Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
>
> > I am not interested in modern crappy theories like relativity and
> > quantum, dear Straydoggie.
>
> So you didn't notice that Allais did this experiment that "suggested
> weakness" in Einstein's theory? I would have thought you would welcome any
> additional doubters of Einstein!
A crappy theory that I have proved to be wrong through and through,
but has been accepted out of fear because of the atom bomb's working,
must of course have some "weakness" that I need not bother about.
I have written a lot about the bungle in the MMI experiment that
started all this nonsense, and provided a much better formula linking
matter with energy that explains not just the atom bomb but all
explosions. That formula, as basic as f=ma, or s=ut+0.5att, changes
the whole of physics.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
By the way, Art, you seem to have missed out my long post "Baying the
moon..." which was a reply to yours, as I had cut out acc from where
you post, I presume. Google posting is now back and I am posting from
google now, and it gives only 5 ngs. It is there in rab, sci if you
are interested.
>
> The former always looked fishy even when I
>
>
>
> > read it as a teenager, and the latter's nonsense I discarded when I
> > actually made radiating elements like dipoles, monopoles, horn
> > antennas, helical antennas, cone antennas radiate by mechancially
> > tweaking them with my own not-fair hands.
>
> > The Great Goddess blessed me when I came upon the correct mathematical
> > equation that relates mass with energy, on a kinetic basis. That
> > elevates all physics, and gives enormous scope for the future. And
> > always thanks to the most gracious Goddess Saraswati, I am still
> > around to explain them on a musical and ironic basis, to please Her.
> > Glory to Them!
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> >> and
>
> >> "He invented a 'paraconical' pendulum to study gravity and found that,
> >> during solar eclipses, the pendulum speeded up slightly. He said it was a
> >> phenomenon 'quite inexplicable within the framework of the
> >> currently-accepted theories' and suggested a possible flaw in Einstein's
> >> theory. A majority of physicists believe the so-called Allais Effect is
> >> inconclusive."
>
> >> ---
> >> The rest of the article (I will type quotes later) was mainly devoted to
> >> the guys genius, that he got the Nobel prize in economics in 1988 (so he
> >> is not a nut-case), and he forsaw all these economic problems we have now
> >> on Wall Street.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Inertial
news:3b6dba18-ca0d-4b25...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> A crappy theory that I have proved to be wrong
Liar. You've never ever done that. If you think you have any proof, present
it for appropriate criticism. Or are you just all talk and bluster like
your fellow crackpots?
Inertial
"mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb1accd7-771c-467f...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Oh looks .. another crackpot has joined Arindam.
Androcles
news:4cbce1cc$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
| "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
| news:3b6dba18-ca0d-4b25...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
| > A crappy theory that I have proved to be wrong
|
| Liar.
--
The evidence is against you on all counts. You have a blockage in your
understanding that you can't see, and you are trying ever so hard to
rationalize so that it remains invisible to you. On top of that, you
(deliberately) misinterpret what is written by those trying to help correct
your viewpoint, so that you can then disregard what they say. As I said,
for someone who is as stupid as you so obviously are (like many here),
this is very joyful, and very amusing.
Old Pif
>
> So you didn't notice that Allais did this experiment that "suggested
> weakness" in Einstein's theory? I would have thought you would welcome any
> additional doubters of Einstein!
>
The device Allais suggested has led to the whole family of extremely
precise measurement techniques. But it did not prove or disprove
anything. At the time he suggested it computers were in their infancy
and you need one to solve equations of general relativity to compare
with experiment. Apart from being rather complicated plus some
uncertainty in the input data, general relativity plays no role in
terrestrial experiments - all effects are very small. It all is
important for cosmology - big masses, large distances.
As far as his statement on plagiarization of relativity theory by
Einstein, he was not and is not the only one why say that. In France
e.g children learn in schools that it was Poincare. All that applied
only to special relativity, though, general relativity had been
devised by Einstein in tight collaboration with Hilbert. The later had
Einstein in very high esteem but all historical facts tell that
collaboration with Hilbert and some others like Grassman and Minkovsky
played very important role. Hilbert at one point has corrected very
important mistake and in general all ideas about invariants came from
him and Emmy Noether. So, it was more complicated story then simple
plagiarization.
Art Sowers
I must have missed it, or it didn't get to my server. That happens, too.
as I had cut out acc from where
> you post, I presume. Google posting is now back and I am posting from
> google now, and it gives only 5 ngs. It is there in rab, sci if you
> are interested.
Or, if I saw it, I didn't think it needed a reply, or, I forgot what it
was about.
Art Sowers
Thanks for your comment.
Art Sowers
Well, I'd like to see it, too.
Art Sowers
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So you didn't notice that Allais did this experiment that "suggested
>> weakness" in Einstein's theory? I would have thought you would welcome any
>> additional doubters of Einstein!
>>
>
> The device Allais suggested has led to the whole family of extremely
> precise measurement techniques. But it did not prove or disprove
> anything. At the time he suggested it computers were in their infancy
> and you need one to solve equations of general relativity to compare
> with experiment. Apart from being rather complicated plus some
> uncertainty in the input data, general relativity plays no role in
> terrestrial experiments - all effects are very small. It all is
> important for cosmology - big masses, large distances.
Well, I remember when the atomic clock experiments flying on airplanes
were done. That counts for me as "terrestrial experiment" and unless the
experiments were not conducted properly, I'd write that one down as a
plus. Beyond that, all I'll make comments about is that there are people
out there who don't accept Einstein. Beyond that, it gets complicated.
> As far as his statement on plagiarization of relativity theory by
> Einstein, he was not and is not the only one why say that.
Oh, you are so right. I've seen at least one book and it looked like it
was ver well referenced so someone did a very large amount of research to
document that. There was one FAQ on this questino, too, posted on
news.answers every month or so, but it is something that is beyond my
interests to pursue. Its enough for me to dig into Hindu/Indian history to
fight anti-US propaganda.
In France
> e.g children learn in schools that it was Poincare. All that applied
> only to special relativity, though, general relativity had been
> devised by Einstein in tight collaboration with Hilbert. The later had
> Einstein in very high esteem but all historical facts tell that
> collaboration with Hilbert and some others like Grassman and Minkovsky
> played very important role. Hilbert at one point has corrected very
> important mistake and in general all ideas about invariants came from
> him and Emmy Noether. So, it was more complicated story then simple
> plagiarization.
Sounds like some problems in biology. Most recent opinions are that
Wallace realy preceeded Darwin with the ideas of evolution.
And, everyone knows that Watson and Crick could not have figured out the
structure of DNA without the critical data from much harder work of at
least three key experimentalists.
Of course, you can see how Maharaj "invents" modern science from ancient
Hindu "metaphysical perspective" (if you want to bother with such
"plaigarism").
mpc755
A double slit experiment performed with a C-60 molecule or atom helps
in understanding the relationship between matter and aether.
Aether has mass.
Aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid.
A moving particle has an associated aether wave. For something as
large as an atom or C-60 molecule the moving particle has an
associated external aether displacement wave. The moving particle
enters and exits a single slit. The associated aether wave enters and
exits multiple slits. The associated aether wave creates interference
upon exiting the slits. When the particle exits a single slit it
interacts with the interference created by its associated aether wave
and the direction it travels is altered. Detecting the particle causes
a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated aether
displacement wave and there is no interference.
mpc755
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>
> >> So you didn't notice that Allais did this experiment that "suggested
> >> weakness" in Einstein's theory? I would have thought you would welcome any
> >> additional doubters of Einstein!
>
> > The device Allais suggested has led to the whole family of extremely
> > precise measurement techniques. But it did not prove or disprove
> > anything. At the time he suggested it computers were in their infancy
> > and you need one to solve equations of general relativity to compare
> > with experiment. Apart from being rather complicated plus some
> > uncertainty in the input data, general relativity plays no role in
> > terrestrial experiments - all effects are very small. It all is
> > important for cosmology - big masses, large distances.
>
> Well, I remember when the atomic clock experiments flying on airplanes
> were done. That counts for me as "terrestrial experiment" and unless the
> experiments were not conducted properly, I'd write that one down as a
> plus. Beyond that, all I'll make comments about is that there are people
> out there who don't accept Einstein. Beyond that, it gets complicated.
>
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the aether
pressure in which it exists. The greater the aether
pressure exerted on and through out an atomic clock the slower the
clock ticks.
In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the
aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert
more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than
the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect
to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a
delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS
satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the
ground."
(quoted text from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS#Relativity).
The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the
matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less
connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and
Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. This
causes the aether, where the airplane flies, to have the affect
of 'flowing' east to west with respect to the surface of the Earth.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html
"Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the
flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and
gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors
are the corresponding standard deviations."
Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the
'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a
greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic
clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward,
is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of
the Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock
causing the atomic clock to tick faster.
Everything is with respect to the state of the aether including
the rate at which light is determined to travel at 'c' and the rate at
which atomic clocks tick.
Art Sowers
That's nice. I have a recent book on quantum mechanics and it described
the double slit experiment as well as the problems of interpretation.
Personally I'd wish I could find a review paper that went into greater
detail on the thinking behind the interpretation of the results.
mpc755
Unfortunately the following link is unavailable and I can not find de
Broglie's article anywhere else online. De Broglie understood a moving
particle has an associated physical wave. De Broglie is the founder of
"a moving particle has an associated wave". In the conclusion below,
it is obvious what he thought of QM.
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles."
"In my view, the wave is a physical one..."
"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
located."
"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle."
"XII. Conclusion
Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics
interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical
extension. I think that when this interpretation is further
elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects,
it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of
waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives
statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."
For something as large as a C-60 molecule the external field acting
on the particle is dark matter. A moving C-60 molecule has an
associated external dark matter displacement wave.
Dark matter is aether.
For something as large as an atom or C-60 molecule the external field
acting on the particle is aether. A moving atom or C-60 molecule has
Art Sowers
OK, don't worry about that too much. It would be nice if I could tune in
on the various lines of thinking at the time.
More below...
De Broglie understood a moving
> particle has an associated physical wave. De Broglie is the founder of
> "a moving particle has an associated wave". In the conclusion below,
> it is obvious what he thought of QM.
>
> 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
> Louis de BROGLIE'
> http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> "When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
> looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
> of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
> his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
> physical reality of waves and particles."
>
> "In my view, the wave is a physical one..."
>
> "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located."
OK, this makes sense to me.
> "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
> wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle."
>
> "XII. Conclusion
> Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics
> interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical
> extension. I think that when this interpretation is further
> elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects,
> it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of
> waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives
> statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."
OK, I can go along with that, too.
> For something as large as a C-60 molecule the external field acting
> on the particle is dark matter. A moving C-60 molecule has an
> associated external dark matter displacement wave.
Interesting possibility, no?
> Dark matter is aether.
>
> For something as large as an atom or C-60 molecule the external field
> acting on the particle is aether. A moving atom or C-60 molecule has
> an associated external aether displacement wave.
Thanks.
Old Pif
>
> Well, I remember when the atomic clock experiments flying on airplanes
> were done. That counts for me as "terrestrial experiment" and unless the
> experiments were not conducted properly, I'd write that one down as a
> plus. Beyond that, all I'll make comments about is that there are people
> out there who don't accept Einstein. Beyond that, it gets complicated.
>
It is special relativity, the best prove of which is electrodynamics
which among other things allow us to communicate right now. It was a
starting point for the ideas of relativity by Lorentz. Allais's device
is supposed to address general relativity which states that the space
around massive objects is curved. When massive bodies move the net
effect is somewhat different according to general relativity than if
simple Newton law of gravity is used. The difference is beyond the
level of noise in all practical devices for all experiment on Earth.
Too small to call.
Koobee Wublee
> Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
>
> "Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
> Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
> relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
> Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
Allais was correct in assessing that Einstein was nobody --- a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. Of course, that does not make Lorentz or
Poincare any geniuses in physics. Poincare was the one who made the
subtle mathematical mistake in Larmor's work. His mistake resulted in
the proliferation of pagan-like belief known as SR. Lorentz's
desperate attempt in interpreting the Lorentz transform fell short of
keeping SR any logical. Poincare died relatively young, and Lorentz
probably found something wrong in SR. Lorentz just walked away and
allowed Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to claim
full credit. <shrug>
> "He invented a 'paraconical' pendulum to study gravity and found that,
> during solar eclipses, the pendulum speeded up slightly. He said it was a
> phenomenon 'quite inexplicable within the framework of the
> currently-accepted theories' and suggested a possible flaw in Einstein's
> theory. A majority of physicists believe the so-called Allais Effect is
> inconclusive."
"Inconclusive" is actually the best word to describe that phenomenon.
<shrug>
Arindam Banerjee
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Can I help it, if you are all other worthless scum are no-brain
idiots, sponging off public fear of the atom bomb and believing the
lies of einsteinian bullshitters. No-name turd, see the other post I
just wrote on this thread and if you have the slightest decency or
ability, do as I said.
Now, fuck off, useless scum.
Cheers to all good folks,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
jBm is just a crook, nothing genuinely Hindu about him. His job is to
create trouble for Hindus by false-flag operation.
Arindam Banerjee
I see that that post I gave as a reply to that coward no-name
Androcles has not appeared. So I am giving the gist, and let us see
if this appears. I have been posting on this for the last ten years,
and the links should be there on Usenet. I have been very patient so
far, answered all questions till the other party started bullshitting
- but now I have no more time to spend on this. If anyone has any guts
or real interest, he or she should organise a seminar in some reputed
university and ask me to give lectures on this topic. I will answer
all questions related to the subject matter. In any case, I have
better things to do now than start this discussion all over again. I
suppose the link related to the MMI experiment, which should come up
with some little effort, may still work and provide the basic reason
for the wrongness of relativity. The new equation for mass and
energy, that I found from first principles, outs not just relativity
and quantum, but the whole of thermodynamics. I have explained all
this in my book "The Principles of Motion" which may be published
electronically or otherwise depending upon my impression of the
intelligence and honesty of possible readers.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
wrote:
I will be assured of their intelligence and honesty if I am asked to
speak out my theories in a public lecture place, in a reputed
university. To a gathering of scientific people who will listen
patiently first. Then they may ask questions, politely, on matters
relating to my lecture subject matter without any diversions.
Basically I have nothing but total and profound contempt for all the
theoretical physicists and their allies, for completely ignoring my
new equation that correctly links mass with energy, and whose
assumption (internal force can cause acceleration) is validated by the
non-reaction in em rail guns. Only abuse, bluster and pettiness is
used to silence me. I am the victim, thus, of an international
conspiracy.
Arindam Banerjee
> On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Oct 18, 11:48 pm, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
> > >> An article in Financial Times, Oct 14, 2010, page 4:
>
> > >> title: "Visionary who warned of bank practices that brought crises"
> > >> by Phil Davison
>
> > >> Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
>
> > >> Arindam, you might like these two paragraphs in the middle of the article.
>
> > > Thanks for the attention, dear Art.
>
> > >> "Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
> > >> Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
> > >> relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
> > >> Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
>
> > > I am not interested in modern crappy theories like relativity and
> > > quantum, dear Straydoggie.
>
> > So you didn't notice that Allais did this experiment that "suggested
> > weakness" in Einstein's theory? I would have thought you would welcome any
> > additional doubters of Einstein!
>
> Aether is displaced by matter.
No, get your theory right at least. Aether is so fine, it pervades all
matter. It is a fixed, solid, highly elastic. It carries all waves
and matter.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca8ef959-d6a7-4e13...@o15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 6:17 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 11:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3b6dba18-ca0d-4b25...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > A crappy theory that I have proved to be wrong
>
> > Liar. You've never ever done that. If you think you have any proof,
> > present
> > it for appropriate criticism. Or are you just all talk and bluster like
> > your fellow crackpots?
>
> Can I help it, if you are all other worthless scum are no-brain
> idiots, sponging off public fear of the atom bomb and believing the
> lies of einsteinian bullshitters. No-name turd, see the other post I
> just wrote on this thread and if you have the slightest decency or
> ability, do as I said.
>
> Now, fuck off, useless scum.
>
> Cheers to all good folks,
> Arindam Banerjee
I see that that post I gave as a reply to that coward no-name
Androcles has not appeared.
AB: Sorry Androcles, going through the posts as they appear on Outlook
Express I fear I have done you injustice. I should not have referred to you
but that Inertial character.
Arthur Sowers
My news server on my regular account is down just now.
More later in the day.
Inertial
> Only abuse, bluster and pettiness is
> used
By you
> I am the victim, thus, of an international
> conspiracy.
BAHAHAHAHA .. you're a egotistical moron who can't handle physics, and
rather than admit has decided that physics must be wrong.
Inertial
> If anyone has any guts
> or real interest, he or she should organise a seminar in some reputed
> university and ask me to give lectures on this topic.
BAHAHA . you're a nobody that noone would care about and having nothing of
value to say .. why on earth would you expect anyone to provide you with the
chance to spread your crap even further?
mpc755
In a previous post of yours you said:
"Personally I'd wish I could find a review paper that went into
greater detail on the thinking behind the interpretation of the
results."
As de Broglie points out:
"Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct,
but in my opinion incomplete."
You can't look to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM as applied to a
double slit experiment if you want to understand what occurs
physically in nature. You can't look to the Copenhagen interpretation
of QM as applied to a double slit experiment if you want to understand
the physics of nature.
What you need to understand if you want to understand the physics of
nature is the ripple discovered by the astronomers using the Hubble
Space Telescope is the same phenomenon which occurs in a double slit
experiment. The galaxy clusters behave as 'particles' and have an
associated physical wave, just like the moving particle in a double
slit experiment does. The associated wave is an aether displacement
wave.
What is also not understood in today's physics is what energy is.
Energy is not a material. Energy is a change in state of matter.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
Matter is the condensation of aether.
'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?'
A.EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not
vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it
expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this
transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy.
mpc755
>
> Interesting possibility, no?
>
Just to be clear, the paragraphs below are mine, not de Broglie's.
Note there are no quotes. IMO, de Broglie was hesitant to ascribe
aether as the external field because he did not understand its impact
on relativity. As Einstein himself stated, "According to the general
theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable".
For something as large as a C-60 molecule the external field acting
on the particle is dark matter. A moving C-60 molecule has an
associated external dark matter displacement wave.
Dark matter is aether.
Arindam Banerjee
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ce3a188-a797-4328...@m35g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 18, 5:48 am, Art Sowers <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>
>> Obituary: Maurice Allais, Economist and physicist, 1911-2010
>>
>> "Allais was also a historian and a physicist of renown, notabley for the
>> Allais Effect, which suggested weaknesses in Einstein's theory of
>> relativity and that Einstein plagiarised research by Hendrik Lorentz, the
>> Dutch physicist, and Frenchman Henri Poincare."
>
> Allais was correct in assessing that Einstein was nobody --- a nitwit,
> a plagiarist, and a liar. Of course, that does not make Lorentz or
> Poincare any geniuses in physics. Poincare was the one who made the
> subtle mathematical mistake in Larmor's work. His mistake resulted in
> the proliferation of pagan-like belief known as SR.
Huh, how is it that a pagan/heathen/etc. like myself has found out the
fundamental flaw (an analytical bungling of the MMI experimental results)
that reduces the whole e=mcc business to the most ridiculous nonsense that
was ever accepted as science by everyone important? In fact, it is the most
pagan/heathen people who have supported my new theories in physics, that
provides the correct mathematical relation between matter and energy.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee