@ArindamBanerjee

I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

My Movie8feb2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

"... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
motors for the proper conquest of space."

You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

[*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
(Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

"FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
look at PROJECT ORION:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
involve continuously ejecting mass.

Aether Regained:
> @ArindamBanerjee
>
> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>
> My Movie8feb2022
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>
> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>
> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>
> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>
> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>
> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>
> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>
> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
> look at PROJECT ORION:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>
> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>

Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

In light of:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

"FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

(1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
[rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

(2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}

or what amounts to the same thing:

(3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
be achieved.

Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:

[-]
> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
> look at PROJECT ORION:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)>

>
> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
> involve continuously ejecting mass.

Eh?

Jan

Aether Regained wrote:

> @ArindamBanerjee

> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

> My Movie8feb2022

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
> motors for the proper conquest of space."

> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does NOT have an equal and opposite reaction.
Your point is merely theoretical.
My evidence is experimental.

> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

I urge you to repeat my experiments honestly and competently instead of persisting with theory proved wrong.

> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

Blah blah. Theoretical stuff. One may as well say the sun goes around the Earth because holy books and great people and Aristotle say so.

> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
> look at PROJECT ORION:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
> involve continuously ejecting mass.

Diversion, how unscientific.

Disgusted.

bt (The ghostly cyberdogs of Arindam who know better physics than Nobel laureates)

Aether Regained wrote:

> Aether Regained:
>> @ArindamBanerjee
>>
>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>>
>> My Movie8feb2022
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>>
>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>>
>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>>
>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>>
>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>>
>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>
>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>
>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>>
>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>>

> Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

> In light of:

> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

Irrelevant

> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy following e=mcc=hv
Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon Maxwellian electrodynamics.

> the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

> (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023 videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

> For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

> (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}

Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from the friction upon the rails.
Sliding will lessen it.

> or what amounts to the same thing:

> (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

> I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
> be achieved.

Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

Le 27/04/2024 à 12:28, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) a écrit :
> Aether Regained wrote:
>
>> @ArindamBanerjee
>
>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>
>> My Movie8feb2022
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>
>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>
>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>
>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>
> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does NOT
> have an equal and opposite reaction.
> Your point is merely theoretical.
> My evidence is experimental.
>
>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>
> I urge you to repeat my experiments honestly and competently instead of
> persisting with theory proved wrong.
>
>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>
>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>
> Blah blah. Theoretical stuff. One may as well say the sun goes around the Earth
> because holy books and great people and Aristotle say so.
>
>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>
>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>
> Diversion, how unscientific.
>
> Disgusted.
>
> bt (The ghostly cyberdogs of Arindam who know better physics than Nobel
> laureates)

Good boys, Bertie and Tyler.
Pat-pat.
"When will they ever learn?"

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

>
> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
> My evidence is experimental.

Correct, merely experimental.
It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
do conserve energy-momentum.
If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
and how these equations must be modified.

As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,

Jan

--
"No experimental result should be believed until it has been confirmed
by a reliable theory" (Arthur Eddington)

Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
>> My evidence is experimental.
>
> Correct, merely experimental.

Heh-heh.
Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors.
They have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
These guys si

> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
experimental evidence.
Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
standpoint.
But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
as God-Clown-Baby.
>
> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
> do conserve energy-momentum.

No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
electric motor design.

> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
> to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
> and how these equations must be modified.

Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is why
the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by Heaviside,
for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force must be
renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force. Out with
Lorentz!

Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word.
The universe is full of aether, it is infinite, and all matter linked with
lines of electric force.
No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
the planets and stars.
Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining hydrogen
cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.

> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,

Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the stars,
after expanding all over the solar system.

And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be burnt
in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and Alexandria
universities look like small campfires.

Cheers,
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
sole god among lotsa devils.

> Jan

On 04/27/2024 06:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
>>> does
>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
>>> theoretical.
>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>
>> Correct, merely experimental.
>
> Heh-heh.
> Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
> And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors. They
> have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
> These guys si
>
>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>
> A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
> experimental evidence.
> Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
> standpoint.
> But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
> as God-Clown-Baby.
>>
>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>
> No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
> conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
> variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
> all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
> electric motor design.
>
>
>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you to tell the world
>> what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>> and how these equations must be modified.
>
> Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is
> why the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by
> Heaviside, for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force
> must be renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force.
> Out with Lorentz!
>
> Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word. The universe is full of aether,
> it is infinite, and all matter linked with lines of electric force.
> No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
> the planets and stars.
> Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining
> hydrogen cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.
>
>
>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>
> Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the
> stars, after expanding all over the solar system.
>
> And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be
> burnt in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and
> Alexandria universities look like small campfires.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
> sole god among lotsa devils.
>
>> Jan
>
>

Force is a function of time.

(Was, "Heyy, Einstein, what are you, retarded?" The notion of
the accelerated and retarded potentials of course is a usual
thing in physics to effect to reflect the sum-of-histories /
sum-of-potentials that represents the instantaneous classical
with regards to the non-linear/un-linear, the multipole,
and all the higher orders of acceleration, in a model
of classical motion, and accelerated/accelerating potentials.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

The empirical already has this stuff all over the place.
The role of the fundamental and foundations, is for mathematics,
what OWES physics more and better mathematics of continuity
and infinity and infinitesimals and infinite expressions
of the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration
in dynamics in motion, to provide these mathematics,
what results MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS and the "ubiquitous
success of mathematics in physics".

Which is never wrong, ....

IP, as they say.

Force: is a function of time.

It's sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, and, "GR first".

GPS satellites and driving the world, today,
are as according to the PPN ephemeris.

-
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
(See "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground".)

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 04/27/2024 06:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
>>>> does
>>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
>>>> theoretical.
>>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>>
>>> Correct, merely experimental.
>>
>> Heh-heh.
>> Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
>> And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors. They
>> have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
>> These guys si
>>
>>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>>
>> A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
>> experimental evidence.
>> Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
>> standpoint.
>> But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
>> as God-Clown-Baby.
>>>
>>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>>
>> No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
>> conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
>> variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
>> all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
>> electric motor design.
>>
>>
>>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you to tell the world
>>> what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>>> and how these equations must be modified.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is
>> why the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by
>> Heaviside, for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force
>> must be renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force.
>> Out with Lorentz!
>>
>> Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word. The universe is full of aether,
>> it is infinite, and all matter linked with lines of electric force.
>> No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
>> the planets and stars.
>> Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining
>> hydrogen cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
>> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.
>>
>>
>>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>>
>> Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the
>> stars, after expanding all over the solar system.
>>
>> And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be
>> burnt in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and
>> Alexandria universities look like small campfires.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
>> sole god among lotsa devils.
>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>

> Force is a function of time.

Force is mass multiplied by the acceleration on the mass.
When there is no movement the result is static, causing stress.
When there is movement for the mass we enter the world of dynamics.
Overall it is called mechanics.

> (Was, "Heyy, Einstein, what are you, retarded?" The notion of
> the accelerated and retarded potentials of course is a usual
> thing in physics to effect to reflect the sum-of-histories /
> sum-of-potentials that represents the instantaneous classical
> with regards to the non-linear/un-linear, the multipole,
> and all the higher orders of acceleration, in a model
> of classical motion, and accelerated/accelerating potentials.)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

> The empirical already has this stuff all over the place.
> The role of the fundamental and foundations, is for mathematics,
> what OWES physics more and better mathematics of continuity
> and infinity and infinitesimals and infinite expressions
> of the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration
> in dynamics in motion, to provide these mathematics,
> what results MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS and the "ubiquitous
> success of mathematics in physics".

> Which is never wrong, ....

> IP, as they say.

> Force: is a function of time.

> It's sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, and, "GR first".

> GPS satellites and driving the world, today,
> are as according to the PPN ephemeris.

> -
> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
> (See "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground".)

bertietaylor wrote:

> Ross Finlayson wrote:

>> On 04/27/2024 06:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> Le 27/04/2024 à 19:50, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>>>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
>>>>> does
>>>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
>>>>> theoretical.
>>>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>>>
>>>> Correct, merely experimental.
>>>
>>> Heh-heh.
>>> Now the e=mcc wallahs will say the Sun goes around the Earth.
>>> And the Moon is a superstructure, created by our distant ancestors. They
>>> have even made a movie about it, "Moonfall" that I saw yesterday.
>>> These guys si
>>>
>>>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>>>
>>> A theory is a conjecture that is widely shared. It is falsified by
>>> experimental evidence.
>>> Of course, that is from the scientific standpoint, not the theological
>>> standpoint.
>>> But then, physics is pure theology now, with e=mcc as dogma and Einstein
>>> as God-Clown-Baby.
>>>>
>>>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>>>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>>>
>>> No, they do not. Force = Magnetic field times current times length of
>>> conductor in a nice vector relationship, with only one current as
>>> variable, is intrinsically without reaction. It is most widely used by
>>> all electrical and electronics engineers. It is the basis for modern
>>> electric motor design.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you to tell the world
>>>> what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>>>> and how these equations must be modified.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly correct. My only grouse is
>>> why the name of Lorentz should be there, it should be replaced by
>>> Heaviside, for the vector notation he introduced. And the Lorentz force
>>> must be renamed as Thomson-Heaviside Force, or abbreviated as THE force.
>>> Out with Lorentz!
>>>
>>> Maxwell in, Einstein out, is the word. The universe is full of aether,
>>> it is infinite, and all matter linked with lines of electric force.
>>> No big bang, no black holes, extreme cold below our feet at the cores of
>>> the planets and stars.
>>> Stars have trillion year cycles of birth and death, with gaining
>>> hydrogen cover from nebulas and losing them to nebulas.
>>> Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon, like strong nuclear force.
>>>
>>>
>>>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>>>
>>> Hardly. The Arindam-Newton Laws of Motion will take humanity to the
>>> stars, after expanding all over the solar system.
>>>
>>> And all the books on relativity-depravity and quantum-bunkum will be
>>> burnt in a huge bonfire that will make the fires in Nalanda and
>>> Alexandria universities look like small campfires.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time,
>>> sole god among lotsa devils.
>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>>

>> Force is a function of time.

> Force is mass multiplied by the acceleration on the mass.
> When there is no movement the result is static, causing stress.
> When there is movement for the mass we enter the world of dynamics.
> Overall it is called mechanics.

So for the first two semesters of my engineering studies we had to grapple with the book
"Engineering Mechanics" by Irving Shames.
It was the most difficult course for most freshers, responsible for most of the dropouts.
Those who made that course went on to become engineers.

>> (Was, "Heyy, Einstein, what are you, retarded?" The notion of
>> the accelerated and retarded potentials of course is a usual
>> thing in physics to effect to reflect the sum-of-histories /
>> sum-of-potentials that represents the instantaneous classical
>> with regards to the non-linear/un-linear, the multipole,
>> and all the higher orders of acceleration, in a model
>> of classical motion, and accelerated/accelerating potentials.)

blah-blah. What struck Arindam was that the most loquacious of those who dropped out from the mechanics course spoke jargon as above. They were thought clever when actually they were retarded.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

Talking of retarded... :-)

>> The empirical already has this stuff all over the place.
>> The role of the fundamental and foundations, is for mathematics,
>> what OWES physics more and better mathematics of continuity
>> and infinity and infinitesimals and infinite expressions
>> of the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration
>> in dynamics in motion, to provide these mathematics,
>> what results MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS and the "ubiquitous
>> success of mathematics in physics".

>> Which is never wrong, ....

The simpler the maths, the greater its genius for change.
Like f=ma
c(v)=(c+v)/L
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
V=Nv

>> IP, as they say.

>> Force: is a function of time.

>> It's sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, and, "GR first".

>> GPS satellites and driving the world, today,
>> are as according to the PPN ephemeris.

GPS does not prove relativity, rather uses its intrinsic property of conformal mapping - like holding the Earth still and the space warped around it.

Yes, there are higher orders involved, like jerk, which is the rate of change of acceleration.
But that is another story.

bt

>> -
>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>> (See "Moment and Motion" under "Philosophical Foreground".)

On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
>> My evidence is experimental.
>
> Correct, merely experimental.
> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>
> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
> do conserve energy-momentum.
> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
> to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
> and how these equations must be modified.
>
> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>

It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
electromagnetic field. But we will never know since he refuses to
produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!". Add his stubbornness
that he insists this is something new that violates
Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do
get the incompetent tinkerer.

Volney wrote:

> On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand do conserve
>> energy-momentum. If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you to
>> tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>> and how these equations must be modified.
>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>
> It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
> violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
> electromagnetic field. But we will never know since he refuses to
> produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
> experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!". Add his stubbornness
> that he insists this is something new that violates
> Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do
> get the incompetent tinkerer.

not true, both wrong. Those are not "Maxwell's equations", but imported
equations he stole from somebody else, ie Faraday, kiss my ass, etc.

𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗦𝗲𝗰.𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗸_𝗶𝗳_𝗔𝗧𝗔𝗖𝗠𝗦_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗯𝗲_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝘀_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/%76%69deo/0LmHzgkBYIll

𝗜𝗼𝗜_𝗜𝘁'𝘀_𝗔_𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗘!_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗨.𝗦._𝗘𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗔𝗹𝗹_𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗔𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗠𝗦_𝗧𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗧𝗼_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗥!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/%76%69deo/0sHDgX4ba5KS

bertietaylor:
> Aether Regained wrote:
>
>> Aether Regained:
>>> @ArindamBanerjee
>>>
>>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>>>
>>> My Movie8feb2022
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>>>
>>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>>>
>>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have
>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>>>
>>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>>>
>>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>>>
>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>
>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>
>>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>>>
>>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>>>
>
>> Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:
>
>> In light of:
>
>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>
> Irrelevant
>
>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>
> Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
> following e=mcc=hv
> Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
>
>> the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:
>
>> (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}
>
> Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023
> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.
>
>> For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:
>
>> (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}
>
> Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
> However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
> the friction upon the rails.
> Sliding will lessen it.
>
>> or what amounts to the same thing:
>
>> (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}
>
>> I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
>> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
>> be achieved.
>
> Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
> them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.
>
> Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
and modern physics. If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation.

Also, all the navy/military rail guns, such as the one below, have
enormous recoil/back reactions, when fired, as expected:

https://youtu.be/58MmOpSm4LY?t=66

Aether Regained wrote:

> bertietaylor:
>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>
>>> Aether Regained:
>>>> @ArindamBanerjee
>>>>
>>>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>>>>
>>>> My Movie8feb2022
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>>>>
>>>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
>>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>>>>
>>>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>>>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
>>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have
>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
>>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>>>>
>>>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
>>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>>>>
>>>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>>>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
>>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
>>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>
>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>
>>>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
>>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>>>>
>>>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>>>>
>>
>>> Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:
>>
>>> In light of:
>>
>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>
>> Irrelevant
>>
>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>
>> Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
>> following e=mcc=hv
>> Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
>> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
>>
>>> the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:
>>
>>> (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>
>> Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023
>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.
>>
>>> For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:
>>
>>> (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}
>>
>> Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
>> However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
>> the friction upon the rails.
>> Sliding will lessen it.
>>
>>> or what amounts to the same thing:
>>
>>> (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>
>>> I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
>>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
>>> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
>>> be achieved.
>>
>> Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
>> them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.
>>
>> Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

> ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

> On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
> momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
> and modern physics.

Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.

> If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
> been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
> than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation.

They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments, Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a multimeter. But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used and a video camera with 30-40 ms resolution.

For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds, just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund the work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.

> Also, all the navy/military rail guns, such as the one below, have
> enormous recoil/back reactions, when fired, as expected:

> https://youtu.be/58MmOpSm4LY?t=66

You need to accelerate the missile before it enters the barrel and that causes reaction. Whether or not rail guns gad reaction was unclear. It was a research issue for Arindam's PhD which was not given as they said he had not made a working model of a rail gun. That was in 2016 with an early design.

bt

On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
> Aether Regained wrote:
>
>> bertietaylor:
>>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aether Regained:
>>>>> @ArindamBanerjee
>>>>>
>>>>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>>>>>
>>>>> My Movie8feb2022
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>>>>>
>>>>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the
>>>>> 'gun' or
>>>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>>>>>
>>>>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>>>>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg -
>>>>> BUT
>>>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have
>>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make
>>>>> reactionless
>>>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>>>>>
>>>>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails,
>>>>> i.e., on
>>>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>>>>>
>>>>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>>>>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully
>>>>> read
>>>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on
>>>>> the
>>>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>>
>>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
>>>>> orthogonal
>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so
>>>>> the
>>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results
>>>>> can be
>>>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>>>>>
>>>>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:
>>>
>>>> In light of:
>>>
>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>
>>> Irrelevant
>>>
>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
>>>> orthogonal
>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>
>>> Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
>>> following e=mcc=hv
>>> Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
>>> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
>>>
>>>> the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:
>>>
>>>> (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
>>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>
>>> Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023
>>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.
>>>
>>>> For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:
>>>
>>>> (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}
>>>
>>> Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
>>> However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
>>> the friction upon the rails.
>>> Sliding will lessen it.
>>>
>>>> or what amounts to the same thing:
>>>
>>>> (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>
>>>> I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds.
>>>> Also,
>>>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
>>>> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
>>>> be achieved.
>>>
>>> Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
>>> them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.
>>>
>>> Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.
>
>> ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg
>
>> On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
>> momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
>> and modern physics.
>
> Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
> physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.
>
>> If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
>> been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
>> than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any
>> instrumentation.
>
> They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
> compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments,
> Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
> with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early
> motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a multimeter.
> But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used and a video
> camera with 30-40 ms resolution.
>
> For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
> just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund the
> work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.
>
No, Banjo, what he said is true. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. Low quality youtube videos without a proper
writeup are worthless, and you will be ignored as you should be. Too
bad, if in the unlikely event you were actually on to something, it will
have to wait until the next person to come along and discover it (and
write a proper scientific paper on his discovery).

On 2024-04-30 23:55:40 +0000, Volney said:

> On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>
>>> bertietaylor:
>>>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aether Regained:
>>>>>> @ArindamBanerjee
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My Movie8feb2022
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
>>>>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>>>>>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>>>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
>>>>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have
>>>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>>>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
>>>>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>>>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>>>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>>>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
>>>>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>>>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>>>>>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>>>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
>>>>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
>>>>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
>>>>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>>>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>>>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:
>>>>
>>>>> In light of:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant
>>>>
>>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>
>>>> Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
>>>> following e=mcc=hv
>>>> Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
>>>> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
>>>>
>>>>> the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:
>>>>
>>>>> (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
>>>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023
>>>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.
>>>>
>>>>> For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:
>>>>
>>>>> (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}
>>>>
>>>> Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
>>>> However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
>>>> the friction upon the rails.
>>>> Sliding will lessen it.
>>>>
>>>>> or what amounts to the same thing:
>>>>
>>>>> (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>>
>>>>> I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
>>>>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
>>>>> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
>>>>> be achieved.
>>>>
>>>> Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
>>>> them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.
>>>>
>>>> Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.
>>
>>> ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg
>>
>>> On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
>>> momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
>>> and modern physics.
>>
>> Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
>> physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.
>>
>>> If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
>>> been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
>>> than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation.
>>
>> They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
>> compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments,
>> Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
>> with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early
>> motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a
>> multimeter. But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used
>> and a video camera with 30-40 ms resolution.
>>
>> For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
>> just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund
>> the work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.

I thought "Dr" Hachel was the greatest genius of all time, or am I confused?
>>
> No, Banjo, what he said is true. Extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence. Low quality youtube videos without a proper
> writeup are worthless, and you will be ignored as you should be. Too
> bad, if in the unlikely event you were actually on to something, it
> will have to wait until the next person to come along and discover it
> (and write a proper scientific paper on his discovery).

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2024-04-30 23:55:40 +0000, Volney said:

>> On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>>
>>>> bertietaylor:
>>>>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aether Regained:
>>>>>>> @ArindamBanerjee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My Movie8feb2022
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
>>>>>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>>>>>>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>>>>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
>>>>>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have
>>>>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>>>>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
>>>>>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>>>>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>>>>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>>>>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
>>>>>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>>>>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>>>>>>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>>>>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
>>>>>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
>>>>>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>>>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>>>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
>>>>>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>>>>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>>>>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In light of:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant
>>>>>
>>>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
>>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>>
>>>>> Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
>>>>> following e=mcc=hv
>>>>> Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
>>>>> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
>>>>>
>>>>>> the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
>>>>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023
>>>>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
>>>>> However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
>>>>> the friction upon the rails.
>>>>> Sliding will lessen it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> or what amounts to the same thing:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
>>>>>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
>>>>>> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
>>>>>> be achieved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
>>>>> them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.
>>>
>>>> ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg
>>>
>>>> On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
>>>> momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
>>>> and modern physics.
>>>
>>> Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
>>> physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.
>>>
>>>> If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
>>>> been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
>>>> than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation.
>>>
>>> They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
>>> compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments,
>>> Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
>>> with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early
>>> motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a
>>> multimeter. But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used
>>> and a video camera with 30-40 ms resolution.
>>>
>>> For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
>>> just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund
>>> the work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.

Volney wrote:

> On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>
>>> bertietaylor:
>>>> Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aether Regained:
>>>>>> @ArindamBanerjee
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My Movie8feb2022
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the
>>>>>> 'gun' or
>>>>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
>>>>>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
>>>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg -
>>>>>> BUT
>>>>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have
>>>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
>>>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make
>>>>>> reactionless
>>>>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
>>>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
>>>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
>>>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails,
>>>>>> i.e., on
>>>>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
>>>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
>>>>>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
>>>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully
>>>>>> read
>>>>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
>>>>>> orthogonal
>>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
>>>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
>>>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:
>>>>
>>>>> In light of:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant
>>>>
>>>>> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
>>>>> orthogonal
>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
>>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
>>>>> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
>>>>
>>>> Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
>>>> following e=mcc=hv
>>>> Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
>>>> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
>>>>
>>>>> the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:
>>>>
>>>>> (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
>>>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023
>>>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.
>>>>
>>>>> For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:
>>>>
>>>>> (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}
>>>>
>>>> Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
>>>> However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
>>>> the friction upon the rails.
>>>> Sliding will lessen it.
>>>>
>>>>> or what amounts to the same thing:
>>>>
>>>>> (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}
>>>>
>>>>> I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds.
>>>>> Also,
>>>>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
>>>>> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
>>>>> be achieved.
>>>>
>>>> Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
>>>> them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.
>>>>
>>>> Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.
>>
>>> ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg
>>
>>> On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
>>> momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
>>> and modern physics.
>>
>> Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
>> physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.
>>
>>> If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
>>> been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
>>> than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any
>>> instrumentation.
>>
>> They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
>> compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments,
>> Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
>> with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early
>> motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a multimeter.
>> But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used and a video
>> camera with 30-40 ms resolution.
>>
>> For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
>> just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund the
>> work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.
>>
> No, Banjo, what he said is true. Extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence.

Which Arindam has provided for the whole world to see. It is not his fault that his genius ideas and experimental eork is dismissed by the vested interests. Nothing new here, of course.

Volney wrote:

> On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>
>> Correct, merely experimental.
>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>>
>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
>> to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>> and how these equations must be modified.
>>
>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>>

> It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
> violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
> electromagnetic field.

It does just that as all except pigheads can see.

But we will never know since he refuses to
> produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
> experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!". Add his stubbornness
> that he insists this is something new that violates
> Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do
> get the incompetent tinkerer.
Nonsense. The experiments prove Arindam's new physics. Which is also available online.

bt

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
> >> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
> >> My evidence is experimental.
> >
> > Correct, merely experimental.
> > It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
> >
> > FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
> > do conserve energy-momentum.
> > If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
> > to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
> > and how these equations must be modified.
> >
> > As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
> >
>
> It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
> violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
> electromagnetic field.

If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
there is still momentum conservation.
And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

> But we will never know since he refuses to
> produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
> experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!".

There is of course no momentum violation at all.
Whatever seems to be missing must be taken up by the sources of the
fields. (and of course I don't watch videos)

> Add his stubbornness that he insists this is something new that violates
> Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do get
> the incompetent tinkerer.

Or the faker who thinks he is being clever.
There is no lack of videos showing really rotating unbalanced wheels,
rotating wheels with water bottles, and so on.

The one I like best are the 3D reproductions of Escher's waterfal,
with really flowing water.

Jan

Le 02/05/2024 à 17:51, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
>> >> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
>> >> My evidence is experimental.
>> >
>> > Correct, merely experimental.
>> > It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>> >
>> > FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>> > do conserve energy-momentum.
>> > If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
>> > to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>> > and how these equations must be modified.
>> >
>> > As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>> >
>>
>> It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
>> violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
>> electromagnetic field.
>
> If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
> there is still momentum conservation.
> And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
> However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
> that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.
>
>> But we will never know since he refuses to
>> produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
>> experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!".

As my dogs have said, I have done far far better than writing some stupid
paper in some worthless journals while paying thousands for that
privilege. A paper like that is ignored and mocked; while so-called worthy
journals like Science or Nature will simply not reply to any submission.

Necessity is the mother of invention, so I invented a new way to publish
original scientific work - post detailed videos in Youtube, follow that up
in Usenet, demolish all the negative comments as I am doing right now.

Any decent, honourable, intelligent and scientific person can follow my
posts and youtube and also facebook links, and come to his or her
conclusions. If they are sufficiently interested, they can repeat my
experiments.
>
> There is of course no momentum violation at all.

There is.

2 sec video of gun in action
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/pcb.7521439881217077/350814810783223

Violation of Inertia Graphs
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7518349538192778&set=pcb.7518389431522122

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7521409061220159&set=pcb.7521439881217077

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7526174314076967&set=pcb.7526275530733512

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7542042632490135&set=pcb.7542144485813283

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7545901418770923&set=pcb.7546155095412222

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7556463141048084&set=pcb.7556513371043061

Photos of gun movement
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7558701247490940&set=pcb.7558707940823604

details are at:

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

> Whatever seems to be missing must be taken up by the sources of the
> fields. (and of course I don't watch videos)

No, the sources of the fields are part of the equipment, not kept
separately on the ground. The ground then does not give any reaction.

In 2015 I had found that when the whole rail gun was used as a pendulum
bob there was no extra swingback when the current was applied. In 2017 I
made detailed videos.

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 opinion of unscientific people who do not care for experiments is
irrelevant. But they are useful to provoke such action as I am doing now,
for the general good and the glory of Science.

>> Add his stubbornness that he insists this is something new that violates
>> Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do get
>> the incompetent tinkerer.
>
> Or the faker who thinks he is being clever.

They used to say in 2017 that I was using my hand to give an extra
movement to the armature, so it was moving because I was pushing it.

At least my latest videos have changed that tune. I have made a much more
powerful working model of my new design rail gun, using more powerful
capacitors and better technology with the same new theory.
The liars are those who said I was faking.
Those who formed the final viva committee in RMIT University in 2016
prevented me from getting my PhD. Bad for them, all the world can know
what sort of people they were.

> There is no lack of videos showing really rotating unbalanced wheels,
> rotating wheels with water bottles, and so on.

Irrelevant to my work on rail guns.
>
> The one I like best are the 3D reproductions of Escher's waterfal,
> with really flowing water.

So you do see videos after all. Just not mine!

Talking of papers, during the Covid period I found out the true cause of
gravity and its consequences. As it would be impossible to publish them
in any journal I posted them on Usenet.

****
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

*****

All my work is based upon my new physics, following my 1998 discovery of
the elementary formula linking mass and energy kinetically.

They are presented in the links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

*******

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> Jan

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
does
>> >> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
theoretical.
>> >> My evidence is experimental.
>> >
>> > Correct, merely experimental.
>> > It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>> >
>> > FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>> > do conserve energy-momentum.
>> > If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
>> > to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>> > and how these equations must be modified.
>> >
>> > As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>> >
>>
>> It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
>> violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
>> electromagnetic field.

> If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
> there is still momentum conservation.
> And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
> However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
> that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

Arindam's work has nothing to do with photon drives.
It has to do with the discovery that the Lorenz force does not have an
equal and opposite reaction

On 5/2/2024 3:51 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
>>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
>>>> My evidence is experimental.
>>>
>>> Correct, merely experimental.
>>> It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
>>>
>>> FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
>>> do conserve energy-momentum.
>>> If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
>>> to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
>>> and how these equations must be modified.
>>>
>>> As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
>>>
>>
>> It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
>> violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
>> electromagnetic field.
>
> If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
> there is still momentum conservation.

Exactly. I just allowed for the extremely remote possibility he detected
something relevant. Almost certainly, if he found anything he found the
known momentum conserving electric field.

> And photon drive really isn't a new idea.

Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

> However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
> that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

That is why what we are really seeing is sloppy demonstrations, it is
very unlikely Aridam's experiments could detect that small effect. We
won't know because Aridam's experiments are unreproduceable,
insufficient detail to reproduce his situation.
>
>> But we will never know since he refuses to
>> produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
>> experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!".
>
> There is of course no momentum violation at all.
> Whatever seems to be missing must be taken up by the sources of the
> fields.

Certainly. But we won't ever know.

> (and of course I don't watch videos)

Smart. His videos are a waste of time.
>
>> Add his stubbornness that he insists this is something new that violates
>> Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do get
>> the incompetent tinkerer.
>
> Or the faker who thinks he is being clever.
> There is no lack of videos showing really rotating unbalanced wheels,
> rotating wheels with water bottles, and so on.

No lack of snake oil salesmen, even these days.

bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> > bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
> does
> >> >> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
> theoretical.
> >> >> My evidence is experimental.
> >> >
> >> > Correct, merely experimental.
> >> > It stands falsified by a reliable theory.
> >> >
> >> > FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
> >> > do conserve energy-momentum.
> >> > If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
> >> > to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
> >> > and how these equations must be modified.
> >> >
> >> > As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,
> >> >
> >>
> >> It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
> >> violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
> >> electromagnetic field.
>
> > If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
> > there is still momentum conservation.
> > And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
> > However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
> > that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.
>
> Arindam's work has nothing to do with photon drives.

No, of course not. Photon drives realy work,
Arindam's things don't.

Jan