Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
> least as taught today, was incorrect.

It is rubbish.

> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
> thing.

No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the
speed of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI
expt results on one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the
Lorenz force not having equal and opposite reaction. With inertia
violated, with my railgun experiments, the essential basis for Eisntein's
1905 paper gets outed.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ

***

Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s

and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s

*****

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
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

*******

2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail

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

****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ

*****

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>> least as taught today, was incorrect.

> It is rubbish.

Banjo Boy. you are *still* dumber than a mud fence... and Richard, you have never proven anything is wrong with relativity... nor has anyone else in the last 120 years or so...

On 04/01/2024 06:14 PM, palsing wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of
>>> relativity, at least as taught today, was incorrect.
>
>> It is rubbish.
>
> Banjo Boy. you are *still* dumber than a mud fence... and Richard, you
> have never proven anything is wrong with relativity... nor has anyone
> else in the last 120 years or so...

Einstein though sort of walked some things back,
"SR is local and the E-spacial", specifically.

That, and mass-energy equivalency sort of is governed
by GR not SR, and sort of is so about the rotational
and moments, and sort of independent the linear and Galilean.

The wider sky survey, after CMBR and the universe was flat,
and after 2MASS and the reshift was much less pronounced,
and definitely since JWST, has roundly paint-canned what
was the highly-tuned theory of inflationary cosmology.

Also again there's a sort of "Dirac's positronic,
Einstein's white-hole, magnetic micropole, vacuum sea".

So, SR and GR are still pretty great, but GR is in front now.

The "dark matter holding galaxies together" and "dark energy
spacing them apart" really is "the unseen which doesn't say much",
except that Parameterized Post-Newtonian is how the Earth's ephemeris
is modeled, and many modern theories like MOND better fit without
tuning the current, and thusly also historical, contents of
the sky survey.

So, Einstein sort of refined his theories, and into one theory,
to sort of protect himself from his own followers.

It's a continuum mechanics is why, or as Einstein put it,
it's sort of a total field theory of differential inertial-systems.

Le 02/04/2024 à 02:50, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>> least as taught today, was incorrect.
>
> It is rubbish.
>
>> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
>> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
>> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
>> thing.
>
> No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the speed
> of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI expt results on
> one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the Lorenz force not having equal
> and opposite reaction. With inertia violated, with my railgun experiments, the
> essential basis for Eisntein's 1905 paper gets outed.

I am surprised that you want to refute things that are so obvious, and
especially by giving false arguments.
It is not possible that the speed of light can be changed by the speed of
the source because the speed of light in a frame of reference is measured
with TWO watches, and the two watches that measure it are in the
receiver's frame of reference .
This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take
into account to produce this speed.
On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the
speed of the wave, it is important to know that it has an importance on
the wavelength and the energy of the photon.

λ'=λ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosα.Vo/c)
λ'=λ.(1-cosα'.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
λ'=λ.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

hυ'=hυ.(1+cosα.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1-cosα'.Vo/c)
hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Thank you for listening.

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo: <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=yicmqV-LmSkUGZMrLIlAvr5aftM@jntp>

Le 02/04/2024 à 20:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 02/04/2024 à 02:50, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>>> least as taught today, was incorrect.
>>
>> It is rubbish.
>>
>>> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
>>> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
>>> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
>>> thing.
>>
>> No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the speed
>> of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI expt results on
>> one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the Lorenz force not having equal
>> and opposite reaction. With inertia violated, with my railgun experiments, the
>> essential basis for Eisntein's 1905 paper gets outed.
>
>
> I am surprised that you want to refute things that are so obvious, and
> especially by giving false arguments.

It is obvious from the MM experiment that the speed of light changes with
the speed of the emitter.
I found the bungle made of the analysis of the experiments back in 2005.
Basically, they ignored the fact that the equipment moves along with the
Earth, as it is on the Earth.
That way, the distances travelled by the light in the two directions are
the same, and so there is the null result. One can check out the detailed
paper, will repost if necessary.
That the light speed changes is most obvious with the Doppler effect,
where frequency changes with the velocity of the emitter.

Thus if c(V)=c+V
f = (c+V)/wavelength.
or f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
or f(rest) + del f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
which gives
del f = V/wavelength

See, when we have velocity of sound/light/water changing with the velocity
of the emitter, then there is no need to twist up the wavelength which
remains the same (as it has to, no way it can get twisted up, it only
moves past faster or slower with more or less speed of the emitter).

When v is positive, we get higher f, as is evidenced.
When v is negative, we get lower f.
So most obviously the speed of light changes with that of the emitter of
light.
Which throws out the first postulate of SR and so the whole thing comes
crashing down.
As I have been pointing out since 2005.

> It is not possible that the speed of light can be changed by the speed of the
> source because the speed of light in a frame of reference is measured with TWO
> watches, and the two watches that measure it are in the receiver's frame of
> reference .

Makes no sense, above. For such an important point, a lot of effort must
be made to make sense.

The speed of light depends upon the quality of the medium, and that is
found from the electromagnetic travelling wave formulations, depending
upon magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity. That the values
from there matched with experimental results is one of the greatest
triumphs of theoretical and experimental physics. After that, the reality
of electromagnetic waves became known, and put to practical use.

Light is kinetic in quality, just like throwing an object from a moving
platform. Wave motion is an essentially kinetic exercise. Just look at the
water wave. When a duck flaps the still water, the waves move faster in
the direction of the force applied. For the source pushes the medium there
with extra velocity.

> This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take into
> account to produce this speed.

Again, this makes no sense.
The speed of the source relates to frequency shift, so we can find how
fast objects are moving.

> On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the speed of
> the wave,

Which is wrong, of course, see above.
The speed of the source increases or decreases the speed of the wave.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

it is important to know that it has an importance on the wavelength and
the energy of the photon.
>
> λ'=λ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosα.Vo/c)
> λ'=λ.(1-cosα'.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> λ'=λ.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>
> hυ'=hυ.(1+cosα.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1-cosα'.Vo/c)
> hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
>
> Thank you for listening.
>
> R.H.

Le 02/04/2024 à 20:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 02/04/2024 à 02:50, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at
>>> least as taught today, was incorrect.
>>
>> It is rubbish.
>>
>>> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which
>>> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply
>>> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same
>>> thing.
>>
>> No, it is not incorrect. It is rubbish. For light speed varies with the speed
>> of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI expt results on
>> one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the Lorenz force not having equal
>> and opposite reaction. With inertia violated, with my railgun experiments, the
>> essential basis for Eisntein's 1905 paper gets outed.
>
>
> I am surprised that you want to refute things that are so obvious, and
> especially by giving false arguments.

I don't give false arguments. I find new theories in physics and prove
them with detailed experiments.

The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ

***

Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near
space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s

and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia
can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting
that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s

*****

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
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

*******

2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail

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

****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ

*****