On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > > > > Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.
> > > > It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.
> > > > > Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?
> > > > I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.
> > > > > I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?
> > > Arindam:
> > > > Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
> > > > Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
> > > > All forces are thus unified.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?
> > By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.
> > >
> > > Regards
> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.

They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.

However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire.. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.

An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.

> Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.

They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.

> Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?

Yes in my articles I have given details.

On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:

>> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
>> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
>
> They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
>
> However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> the wires and save her.
>
> An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> difference, are magical stuff still.

You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
fast inside a CRT.

But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
when the heroine will die.

For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.

I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
finishing it.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Good morning

Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:33:17 +1100 / Peter Moylan:

> what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> when the heroine will die.

Just to complete my layman's image of things. Does the relationship
between moving electrons and the moving electromagnetic wave is creating
the one between current and voltage?
Put another way.., while current is moving electrons, potential becomes
voltage due to that possibility of an electromagnetic wave?

I always understood the difference, but never the reason ...

Cheerio

Michael
--
Le progrès, ce n'est pas l'acquisition de biens. C'est l'élévation de
l'individu, son émancipation, sa compréhension du monde. Et pour ça il
faut du temps pour lire, s'instruire, se consacrer aux autres.
(Christiane Taubira)

On 07/02/23 16:51, Michael Uplawski wrote:
>
> Good morning
>
> Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:33:17 +1100 / Peter Moylan:
>
>> what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
>> electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that
>> determines when the heroine will die.
>
> Just to complete my layman's image of things. Does the relationship
> between moving electrons and the moving electromagnetic wave is
> creating the one between current and voltage? Put another way..,
> while current is moving electrons, potential becomes voltage due to
> that possibility of an electromagnetic wave?
>
> I always understood the difference, but never the reason ...

I can't think of an easy answer to that, but consider this. If you apply
a step voltage at one end of the cable, a wavefront propagates at high
speed down the cable. Assuming that there is no reflection at the other
end (you can ensure that by matching impedances) you then get a steady
state where there's a constant current flow, and the wave itself is no
longer of interest. Maxwell's equations reduce to a steady state. The
dynamic aspect of the wave was only relevant as the front was moving
along, with no current flowing ahead of the wave, and a normal current
behind it. If you want a water flow analogy, think of a flood starting
at the head of a river, after which the front of the extra water moves
rapidly downstream.

That's one aspect. Here's another.

Voltage (potential difference) is, by definition, the integral of the E
field (electric field) between two points. In the cable example, the
integral is from one conductor to the other. Thus the moving electrical
field of the wavefront gives rise to a voltage that moves at the same
speed. There is also a transverse magnetic field B, and that can be
related to the current.

Once steady state is established, the E and B fields are constant.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Tue, 7 Feb 2023 18:32:39 +1100 / Peter Moylan:

> On 07/02/23 16:51, Michael Uplawski wrote:
>>
>> Good morning
>>
>> Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:33:17 +1100 / Peter Moylan:
>>
>>> what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving electrons
>>> is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines when the
>>> heroine will die.
>>
>> Just to complete my layman's image of things. Does the relationship
>> between moving electrons and the moving electromagnetic wave is
>> creating the one between current and voltage? Put another way.., while
>> current is moving electrons, potential becomes voltage due to that
>> possibility of an electromagnetic wave?
>>
>> I always understood the difference, but never the reason ...
>
> I can't think of an easy answer to that, but consider this. If you apply
> a step voltage at one end of the cable, a wavefront propagates at high
> speed down the cable. Assuming that there is no reflection at the other
> end (you can ensure that by matching impedances) you then get a steady
> state where there's a constant current flow, and the wave itself is no
> longer of interest. Maxwell's equations reduce to a steady state. The
> dynamic aspect of the wave was only relevant as the front was moving
> along, with no current flowing ahead of the wave, and a normal current
> behind it. If you want a water flow analogy, think of a flood starting
> at the head of a river, after which the front of the extra water moves
> rapidly downstream.
>
> That's one aspect. Here's another.
>
> Voltage (potential difference) is, by definition, the integral of the E
> field (electric field) between two points. In the cable example, the
> integral is from one conductor to the other. Thus the moving electrical
> field of the wavefront gives rise to a voltage that moves at the same
> speed. There is also a transverse magnetic field B, and that can be
> related to the current.
>
> Once steady state is established, the E and B fields are constant.

8) Thank you very much. I will not claim to have thoroughly understood
everything, but once had been familiar with the basics. I must look up a
few things but am content with a concise explanation (for a change). The
steady state is what I did not know about and it shows that my ideas were
wrong until now, just as my question, above, not as related as I thought.

Cool thing, this newsgroup !

--
Le progrès, ce n'est pas l'acquisition de biens. C'est l'élévation de
l'individu, son émancipation, sa compréhension du monde. Et pour ça il
faut du temps pour lire, s'instruire, se consacrer aux autres.
(Christiane Taubira)

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:03:30 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
>
> >> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
> >> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
> >
> > They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> > less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> > travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> > particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> > defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
> >
> > However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> > movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> > electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> > current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> > the wires and save her.
> >
> > An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> > about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> > the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> > wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> > difference, are magical stuff still.
> You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
> wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
> moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
> fast inside a CRT.
>
> But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
> wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
> is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
> wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
> forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> when the heroine will die.
>
> For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
> is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
> the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
> insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.
>
> I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
> Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
> finishing it.
>
> --
> Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Some academic regurgitates what I wrote in the most boring manner.

On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 00:12:11 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:03:30 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> >
> > >> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
> > >> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
> > >
> > > They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> > > less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> > > travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> > > particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> > > defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
> > >
> > > However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> > > movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> > > electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> > > current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> > > the wires and save her.
> > >
> > > An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> > > about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> > > the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> > > wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> > > difference, are magical stuff still.
> > You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
> > wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
> > moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
> > fast inside a CRT.
> >
> > But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
> > wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
> > is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
> > wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
> > forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> > electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> > when the heroine will die.
> >
> > For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
> > is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
> > the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
> > insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.
> >
> > I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
> > Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
> > finishing it.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
> Some academic regurgitates what I wrote in the most boring manner.
I missed a comma or some other punctuation above, to make a single sentence.
What I meant was to write:
Some (fool of a) academic regurgitates what i wrote, in the most boring manner.
Not sure if the comma does the job. Should a hyphen be better? Or three periods, now what is that called!

On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 04:03:37 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 00:12:11 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:03:30 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
> > > >> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
> > > >
> > > > They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> > > > less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> > > > travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> > > > particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> > > > defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering..
> > > >
> > > > However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> > > > movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> > > > electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> > > > current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> > > > the wires and save her.
> > > >
> > > > An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> > > > about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> > > > the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> > > > wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> > > > difference, are magical stuff still.
> > > You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
> > > wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
> > > moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
> > > fast inside a CRT.
> > >
> > > But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
> > > wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
> > > is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
> > > wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
> > > forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> > > electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> > > when the heroine will die.
> > >
> > > For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
> > > is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
> > > the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
> > > insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.
> > >
> > > I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
> > > Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
> > > finishing it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
> > Some academic regurgitates what I wrote in the most boring manner.
> I missed a comma or some other punctuation above, to make a single sentence.
> What I meant was to write:
> Some (fool of a) academic regurgitates what i wrote, in the most boring manner.
> Not sure if the comma does the job. Should a hyphen be better? Or three periods, now what is that called!

Quotes from a recent post in alt.philosophy-

> The question why the masses have turned away from philosophy, as a 'classical' study anyway...well, it's part of a larger 'problem' I see in general.. Intellectualism and academy go hand in hand. But so does 'ego centrism'. It is often hard to discern one from the other. We instinctively sense when something is 'off kilter' though. I'd argue there is a deepening egotistical vein found in all of academia now, and perhaps in all that we 'know' [or think so]. It is harder to see in the physical sciences, because there is not much room to 'colorize' physical law and facts. Philosophy however is rife with human ego centrism...which in itself might not be a bad thing, but taken to heights that 'challenge the gods' [so to speak]...well, some of us have sensed this FLAW...very prevalent in that academia now.

Academics have to be bullshitters, for they are professors at the top, and a professor must profess some existing dogma, which is naturally bullshit, being outdated and wrong to various degrees. |Academics are thus the greatest enemy of the creative person, who wants to initiate something newer and better. The adage, the good is the enemy of the better is most appropriate for the academic, assuming the creature is something good to begin with - and that is rare. These parasites cover up their inadequacies with egocentrism, and that may jar the sensitive soul - like that of Tooly here - but one must say, they are highly skilled at politics, so know how to butter-up whom for their funding. The importance given to academics, the tools of capitalists and other bloodsuckers to be trotted out on media for some business or political purpose, thus, boosts the level of bullshit in public life, and works against any creative process that cannot be controlled by their paymasters.
>
> Anyway, one could write volumes on the subject, but memes carry far more 'interpretative' conveyance and are succinct [saving us those volumes]. Offered here is a famous clip of Charlie Chaplin from his 1940's 'the dictator'. I offer as insight into the darker realms of psychic resolve we all carry...but most of us keep 'leashed to a tree' [as the old barking dog might allow]. As our intellects 'swell'...hopefully with just knowledge and understanding, that dog grows...and often can break that leash and go a wandering through the neighborhood. Chaplin, in this memed clip, I think shows that dog 'unleashed' in it's less adorned cause...or as the song goes, 'we all want to rule the world'.

The academic has his own little universe, where he is the undisputed king. All of them unitedly form a network, amounting to a dictatorship of, for and by learned fools, frauds, and plain fools respectively.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:12:11 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:03:30 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> >
> > >> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
> > >> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
> > >
> > > They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> > > less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> > > travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> > > particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> > > defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
> > >
> > > However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> > > movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> > > electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> > > current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> > > the wires and save her.
> > >
> > > An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> > > about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> > > the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> > > wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> > > difference, are magical stuff still.
> > You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
> > wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
> > moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
> > fast inside a CRT.
> >
> > But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
> > wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
> > is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
> > wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
> > forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> > electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> > when the heroine will die.
> >
> > For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
> > is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
> > the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
> > insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.
> >
> > I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
> > Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
> > finishing it.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
>
> Some academic regurgitates what I wrote in the most boring manner.

So, make it into a movie.

On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 21:52:57 UTC+5:30, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:12:11 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:03:30 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
> > > >> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
> > > >
> > > > They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> > > > less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> > > > travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> > > > particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> > > > defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
> > > >
> > > > However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> > > > movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> > > > electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> > > > current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> > > > the wires and save her.
> > > >
> > > > An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> > > > about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> > > > the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> > > > wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> > > > difference, are magical stuff still.
> > > You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
> > > wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
> > > moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
> > > fast inside a CRT.
> > >
> > > But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
> > > wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
> > > is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
> > > wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
> > > forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> > > electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> > > when the heroine will die.
> > >
> > > For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
> > > is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
> > > the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
> > > insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.
> > >
> > > I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
> > > Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
> > > finishing it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
> >
> > Some academic regurgitates what I wrote in the most boring manner.
> So, make it into a movie.
Won't sell.

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:11:49 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 21:52:57 UTC+5:30, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:12:11 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:03:30 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
> > > > >> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> > > > > less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> > > > > travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> > > > > particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> > > > > defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
> > > > >
> > > > > However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> > > > > movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> > > > > electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> > > > > current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> > > > > the wires and save her.
> > > > >
> > > > > An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> > > > > about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> > > > > the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> > > > > wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> > > > > difference, are magical stuff still.
> > > > You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
> > > > wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
> > > > moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
> > > > fast inside a CRT.
> > > >
> > > > But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
> > > > wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
> > > > is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
> > > > wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
> > > > forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> > > > electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> > > > when the heroine will die.
> > > >
> > > > For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
> > > > is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
> > > > the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
> > > > insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.
> > > >
> > > > I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
> > > > Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
> > > > finishing it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
> > >
> > > Some academic regurgitates what I wrote in the most boring manner.
> > So, make it into a movie.
> Won't sell.

You don't determine that. Just write it all down and mail it to Disney, Paramount Universal or Warner Brothers and let them say so.

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 21:49:26 UTC+5:30, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:11:49 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 21:52:57 UTC+5:30, bruce bowser wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:12:11 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:03:30 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > > On 07/02/23 13:48, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel
> > > > > >> and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much
> > > > > > less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the
> > > > > > travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the
> > > > > > particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path
> > > > > > defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi
> > > > > > movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to
> > > > > > electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the
> > > > > > current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut
> > > > > > the wires and save her.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked
> > > > > > about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for
> > > > > > the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the
> > > > > > wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential
> > > > > > difference, are magical stuff still.
> > > > > You're right in saying that most people don't understand this. When a
> > > > > wire is carrying an electrical current, the electrons themselves are
> > > > > moving relatively slowly. And, for that matter, they don't move all that
> > > > > fast inside a CRT.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if someone turns on a switch at one end of a power cable, there is a
> > > > > wavefront that travels along the cable towards the other end, and that
> > > > > is what the horse has to beat. The relationship between the speed of the
> > > > > wave and the speed of the electrons is too technical to discuss in this
> > > > > forum, but what it boils down to is that the speed of the slow-moving
> > > > > electrons is irrelevant. It is the speed of the wave that determines
> > > > > when the heroine will die.
> > > > >
> > > > > For a pair of bare wires, that speed is the speed of light in air, which
> > > > > is almost equal to the speed of light in vacuum. In an insulated cable
> > > > > the speed is lower, depending on the dielectric properties of the
> > > > > insulation, but it's still of the same order as c.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought I had an article on my web site called "Maxwell's Silver
> > > > > Hammer", explaining such stuff, but it looks as if I never got around to
> > > > > finishing it.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
> > > >
> > > > Some academic regurgitates what I wrote in the most boring manner.
> > > So, make it into a movie.
> > Won't sell.
> You don't determine that. Just write it all down and mail it to Disney, Paramount Universal or Warner Brothers and let them say so.
Why should I bother. They are not Hindi film makers, who have already done this.

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 13:48:33 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > > > > > Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.
> > > > > It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.
> > > > > > Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?
> > > > > I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.
> > > > > > I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?
> > > > Arindam:
> > > > > Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
> > > > > Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
> > > > > All forces are thus unified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?
> > > By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
>
> They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
>
> However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.
>
> An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.
>
>
>
> > Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.
>
> They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.
>
> > Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?
>
> Yes in my articles I have given details.

> Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?

From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.

Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.

Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.

Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.

>Since the charged particles are also accelerating,

They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.

> one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?

Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 13:48:33 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:08 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:46:56 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 21:48:32 UTC+5:30, gandikotam wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 09:31:28 UTC+11, gandikotam wrote:
> > > > > > Arindam: how are we going to count the number of charged particles in a given mass? That number could be googolplex.
> > > > > It is very large, but finite. I go into a lot of figures in the texts.
> > > > > > Even computers can't process it at this time. Any idea why you chose the charged particles?
> > > > > I got answers not with computers, but with paper and pencil, as anyone reading all I wrote can see.
> > > > > > I think mass is a good approximation of that even if it isn't accurate, no?
> > > > Arindam:
> > > > > Yes it is, but it does not explain why particles leave the Sun. Why should they leave the Sun if the existing formula works?
> > > > > Essentially, I am showing how the universe works, by theorizing that gravity is electrostatic.
> > > > > All forces are thus unified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > I will make a naive hypothesis. Can't they be leaving the sun because of internal explosions accelerating them to the speed of light, can't they?
> > > By particles I do not mean radiation. I mean protons and electrons. They can never be accelerated to light speed. Point is that these charged masses can and do leave the stars, to form nebulas. Then dark matter or core of stars gets there and swallows up the hydrogen to form a bright star.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > I don't get it. Charged particles inside cathode ray tubes travel and great speed. Not sure if they reach the light speed.
>
> They do not. Much less. The speed of the charged particles is much less than the speed of the electromagnetic wave. It is the travelling em wave between a potential difference that causes the particles in the path to move at a certain speed, all along the path defined by the electric field. This is basic electrical engineering.
>
> However the lay mind does not understand this. There was this Hindi movie where the villain had pulled the switch to send the current to electrocute the heroine. Our hero rides his horse, matching the current flow in the wire. He reaches the heroine just in time to cut the wires and save her.
>
> An old friend and lab partner of mine, from the IIT days, talked about this scene when we last met. The film was not quite wrong, for the charges do move slowly, but faster than a horse. However the wave motion, travel of the electric field due to potential difference, are magical stuff still.
>
>
>
> > Why can't charged particles travel at light speed? Please enlighten me.
>
> They can if they undergo constant acceleration by some means. I suppose cyclotrons are there for that. But I was talking of charged particles leaving the Sun and stars to form nebulas, in their trillion year cycles.
>
> > Also, they don't need light speed, but need to reach the escape velocity on the Sun which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity is 617.5 km/s much lower than light speed, right?
>
> Yes in my articles I have given details.

***************************************************

> > Another naive question. Where does the energy for the travelling em wave come from?
> > From the electrical forces causing it to radiate. Greater the electric forces, longer the path of the wave till it becomes too less, and is part of background noise.
> I still don't understand. The electric force has to be mediated somehow by more fundamental particles, doesn't it? Take for example a permanent magnet that can lose its magnetism over a period of time.

This is a fallacy, which is taught in schools.
I thought exactly as you do, that permanent magnets lose their magnetism over time.
In 2013 at a conference ICEMS2013 in Busan, where I presented a paper, I met an Indian lady engineer from Sydney. She informed me that permanent magnets are really permanent, they do NOT lose their magnetism. Which is why they are so much used in permanent motors. This was a revelation for me. The huge jump in motor efficiency and small size owes to the use of permanent magnets in the design.
This news was indeed useful to me, for it showed how the perpetual motion machine had to work, and indeed alibaba sells the pmm but as the cost of permanent magnets is high as compared to the usual steel and copper, it is not cost effective save for certain situations.
They do however prove my theory that the law of conservation of energy is at best a special case - usually energy is always getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

> Where does the magnetism go?

Magnetism is caused by the current loops in the magnetic material. With heat the material loses its magnetism, for then the heat destroys the patterns causing the current loops. Within a given temperature range the magnetism does not disappear. This is a great new finding which is at the heart of the new electric motor industry.

>I think the charge which is responsible for its magnetism has been dissipated somehow. ????

No, the charge never disappears. The law of conservation of charge, is valid. To the extent that the charge amounts to mass, the law of conservation of mass is valid.
>
> Regards
> > Energy is a economic concept, favoured by the bunny-ahs, for storing and selling by restriction.
> > It is essentially forces we should be cocerned about, in physics.
> >
> > Primarily, the law of conservation of charge. Charge never gets destroyed. This is the ultimate foundation of my new physics.
> >
> > Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.
> > >Since the charged particles are also accelerating,
> > They only accelerate in a potential causing the electric field.
> > > one can say they are doing some work, and derive the energy from the electric field, right?
> > Work is done upon them by the electric field, yes. They can do work when they impact or something.
> > >

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

[]
> > > Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.
[]

You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG. Why you
think you might get a better reception in an English Usage NG is beyond me.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 13/02/23 21:14, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST) Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> []
>>>> Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a
>>>> canard by bunny-ah types.
> []
>
> You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG. Why
> you think you might get a better reception in an English Usage NG is
> beyond me.

The last time I checked -- admittedly, a long time ago -- the science
newsgroups were full of cranks. It's possible that you'll find more
people who understand the science in AUE.

That doesn't help Arindam, though. He's trying to appeal to people who
don't understand physics. He'd be better of in a place like
alt.creation, or whatever it's called.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST)
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> []
> > > > Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.
> []
>
> You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG. Why you
> think you might get a better reception in an English Usage NG is beyond me.

I do post in science ngs.
All my new ideas inphysics are archived in sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.

People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me here, so I post here my new ideas and works, simply to annoy them. Because I can. Fun for me.

The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for me. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to myself. Altruism works like that.

This is one of the very few newsgroups still not inactive, so far as ancient posters are concerned.
That they do not respond positively shows them up, for what they really are.
Which is information for orientals, not that they need to know.

Well, this is an English language group so it is perfectly correct to say that certain words used in English may not be given the same regard as of yore, for the sake of truth, goodness and beauty.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
>
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 16:22:23 UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/02/23 21:14, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST) Arindam Banerjee
> > <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > []
> >>>> Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a
> >>>> canard by bunny-ah types.
> > []
> >
> > You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG. Why
> > you think you might get a better reception in an English Usage NG is
> > beyond me.
> The last time I checked -- admittedly, a long time ago -- the science
> newsgroups were full of cranks. It's possible that you'll find more
> people who understand the science in AUE.

Science is open to all. As to who knows what is correct, or not, is something not easy to find.
I find that the people who claim to know science here, belong to the same class that believed in crystal spheres, etc. In short, academics, who are professional liars out to suppress whatever new they think upsets their hegemony. Newton was soooo hated by academics.

It is easy to dismiss one as a crank with inductive logic. Difficult to do that with deductive logic. Lazy ones won't even try.

>
> That doesn't help Arindam, though. He's trying to appeal to people who
> don't understand physics. He'd be better of in a place like
> alt.creation, or whatever it's called.

I appeal to the good people, wherever they may be. Who knows when fortunes may change.

> --
> Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 06:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST)
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > []
> > > > > Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.
> > []
> >
> > You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG. Why you
> > think you might get a better reception in an English Usage NG is beyond me.
>
> I do post in science ngs.
> All my new ideas inphysics are archived in sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.
>
> People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me here, so I post here my new ideas and

It's not about skin colo[u]r, it's about rewriting physics. There will
always be unbelievers in Science, it's what it's all about, but Evidence
is what's needed.

> works, simply to annoy them. Because I can. Fun for me.

Ah; that is just what trolls like to do. You admit you are no better than
them.

> The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for me. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to myself. Altruism works like that.

But you claim to be some kind of super person with greater insight than
Einstein etc. This won't help sell your ideas.

> This is one of the very few newsgroups still not inactive, so far as ancient posters are concerned.
> That they do not respond positively shows them up, for what they really are.
> Which is information for orientals, not that they need to know.
>
> Well, this is an English language group so it is perfectly correct to say that certain words used in English may not be given the same regard as of yore, for the sake of truth, goodness and beauty.

You need better backup than a few u-tube videos; and you really should try
to convince some of your peers, not us 'good' people. I you can't do that,
then you won't get anywhere.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 02:38:55 UTC+11, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 06:42:36 -0800 (PST)
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST)
> > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > []
> > > > > > Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.
> > > []
> > >
> > > You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG. Why you
> > > think you might get a better reception in an English Usage NG is beyond me.
> >
> > I do post in science ngs.
> > All my new ideas inphysics are archived in sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.
> >
> > People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me here, so I post here my new ideas and
> It's not about skin colo[u]r, it's about rewriting physics.

True it is not only racism but also bigotry.
For centuries western anglo whites demeaned non-whites, exploited them mercilessly.
Their reason or rather excuse was that their One True God had given them that right, for they were superior as they were white. Simple as that. Any non-white who converted to their particular sect would be something second class, but there to be given crumbs. All others would be exterminated, when possible, or enslaved to begin with.
That strategy worked well for the Western anglo whites. True Herr Hitler upset the works for them, colonialism ceased to be direct but indirect via manipulation; but their claim to all sorts of supremacy remains.
So when a nonwhite like myself, who does not apologize for being a Hindu, knocks down the most hallowed ideas and ideals, in the supposedly perfectly strong field of physics, he must be ignored and ridiculed. He must be a crank! Must be equated with the genuine offical pet cranks, like Archimedes Plutonium. They are all cranks, he must be one. He has no publications!
Pure deductive logic at work, what!
What can be predicted?
It is not a wonder that white (not even anglo) professors reject my attempts at publication, but I have had some luck with oriental academics in the matter of publication.
So it is to the East I look forward to, now. The West is perfectly corrupt in the field of physics. No oriental or even Indian ever mocked my work or called me names.

> There will
> always be unbelievers in Science, it's what it's all about, but Evidence
> is what's needed.

I have provided plenty. None so blind as those who will not see, shower abuse instead.

> > works, simply to annoy them. Because I can. Fun for me.
> Ah; that is just what trolls like to do. You admit you are no better than
> them.

I certainly do not, your liar or fool. I am far better than them or you or anyone around, given the quality of my outputs.
Feeling sorry for myself is not my style, true. Also true, the oppressive types want everyone around to be miserable. When they find happiness around, they feel insecure.

> > The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for me.. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to myself. Altruism works like that.
> But you claim to be some kind of super person with greater insight than
> Einstein etc.

Absolutely. I have shown how wrong he was, what a great bungler he was, a great disaster for the world with his horrendously wrong notions that has literally twisted up the universe with lies and nonsense.

> This won't help sell your ideas.

Not with the Eurocentric racist bigoted big-bang-wallah creationist types, true. Right you are, for once,

See, this Einstein stuff is nothing to do with science, it has to do with Jewish mythology followed by more than half the world.
The physics that shows the universe is infinite and eternal will turn that to just stories in a really-real way, and that will upset those who fund the bigbangwallahs, a version of creation and a finite universe.

But the orient is still there, so let us see what the future brings.

> > This is one of the very few newsgroups still not inactive, so far as ancient posters are concerned.
> > That they do not respond positively shows them up, for what they really are.
> > Which is information for orientals, not that they need to know.
> >
> > Well, this is an English language group so it is perfectly correct to say that certain words used in English may not be given the same regard as of yore, for the sake of truth, goodness and beauty.
> You need better backup than a few u-tube videos;

The question is why no one is repeating those experiments. They must all be cowards. Or careerists, scared to upset anyone.

> and you really should try
> to convince some of your peers,

I have no peers - there are in this field Einsteinian scum at all powerful levels, who hold that all those differing from their thoughts are cranks. They have turned physics into a religion with Einstein as god and e=mcc as dogma.

Had Tesla been around I would have gone to him.

> not us 'good' people.

You are not good people. Good in my book includes the quality of bravery, decency, sportsmanship. Impossible to find genuinely good people in the cowardly west-west; they do not exist anymore if ever they did. No one with guts to be seen, who even dares to publicly repeat my rail gun experiments violating inertia. Or even talk about them. Out of the millions of journalists who jump at every sneeze of Meghan Markle, not one comes to check out how much of a crank I am. What curiosity!

I am hoping for better luck in the East. Let us see. Surely they cannot all be cowed down as the whites are.

> I you can't do that,
> then you won't get anywhere.

I have got forward more than I thought I would get when I discovered the correct formula relating mass and energy on a kinetic basis in 1998, and detailed that in my book "To the stars!' written in 1999 and published online in 2000. In 2003 I got a print publication (by some error of judgment, the editor thought I was anti Newton when reverse of that was the actual case) in Outlook Science Magazine which one can read by paying Rs10. It was a piece of luck, for it means that my new ideas, provided online, cannot be stolen by the thugs as at least some is in print.

I have proved my ideas with experiments, presented that to the world online, using my invention the low voltage rail gun firing a heavy armature. Naturally, the racist bigots ignore it, for reasons given above.

For my new revolutionary work, I was hounded out of employment, ridiculed and persecuted, deprived in every way they could. But still I am here, and have proved my ideas with youtube videos that explain my works in the clearest detail.

I have come a long way, but of course, there is no end to the journey. When I cease my work others will follow it up.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:38:50 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 06:42:36 -0800 (PST)
>Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST)
>> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > []
>> > > > > Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a canard by bunny-ah types.
>> > []
>> >
>> > You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG. Why you
>> > think you might get a better reception in an English Usage NG is beyond me.
>>
>> I do post in science ngs.
>> All my new ideas inphysics are archived in sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.
>>
>> People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me here, so I post here my new ideas and
>
> It's not about skin colo[u]r, it's about rewriting physics. There will
>always be unbelievers in Science, it's what it's all about, but Evidence
>is what's needed.
>
>> works, simply to annoy them. Because I can. Fun for me.
>
>Ah; that is just what trolls like to do. You admit you are no better than
>them.
>
>
>> The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for me. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to myself. Altruism works like that.
>
>But you claim to be some kind of super person with greater insight than
>Einstein etc. This won't help sell your ideas.

It's not that it won't help sell his ideas. It's that it turns most of
us off to believing any of his ideas. And that's why many (most?) of
us here have him killfiled.

On 14/02/23 01:42, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST) Arindam Banerjee
>> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> []
>>>>> Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a
>>>>> canard by bunny-ah types.
>> []
>>
>> You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG.
>> Why you think you might get a better reception in an English Usage
>> NG is beyond me.
>
> I do post in science ngs. All my new ideas inphysics are archived in
> sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of
> physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.
>
> People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me
> here, so I post here my new ideas and works, simply to annoy them.
> Because I can. Fun for me.
>
> The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for
> me. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to
> myself. Altruism works like that.
>
> This is one of the very few newsgroups still not inactive, so far as
> ancient posters are concerned. That they do not respond positively
> shows them up, for what they really are. Which is information for
> orientals, not that they need to know.
>
> Well, this is an English language group so it is perfectly correct to
> say that certain words used in English may not be given the same
> regard as of yore, for the sake of truth, goodness and beauty.

I've learnt something new. Until today, I thought there was no way to
introduce racism into physics.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

In article <tsel9d$29mvc$3@dont-email.me>,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/02/23 01:42, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST) Arindam Banerjee
> >> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> []
> >>>>> Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a
> >>>>> canard by bunny-ah types.
> >> []
> >>
> >> You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG.
> >> Why you think you might get a better reception in an English Usage
> >> NG is beyond me.
> >
> > I do post in science ngs. All my new ideas inphysics are archived in
> > sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of
> > physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.
> >
> > People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me
> > here, so I post here my new ideas and works, simply to annoy them.
> > Because I can. Fun for me.
> >
> > The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for
> > me. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to
> > myself. Altruism works like that.
> >
> > This is one of the very few newsgroups still not inactive, so far as
> > ancient posters are concerned. That they do not respond positively
> > shows them up, for what they really are. Which is information for
> > orientals, not that they need to know.
> >
> > Well, this is an English language group so it is perfectly correct to
> > say that certain words used in English may not be given the same
> > regard as of yore, for the sake of truth, goodness and beauty.

> I've learnt something new. Until today, I thought there was no way to
> introduce racism into physics.

Not so many yearsa ago, students at Cape Tpwn university wanted a stop to
being taught "White Science". They wanted "Black Science".
My thought was the they should stop using electricity

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 14/02/23 01:42, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST) Arindam Banerjee
> >> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> []
> >>>>> Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a
> >>>>> canard by bunny-ah types.
> >> []
> >>
> >> You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG.
> >> Why you think you might get a better reception in an English Usage
> >> NG is beyond me.
> >
> > I do post in science ngs. All my new ideas inphysics are archived in
> > sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of
> > physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.
> >
> > People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me
> > here, so I post here my new ideas and works, simply to annoy them.
> > Because I can. Fun for me.
> >
> > The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for
> > me. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to
> > myself. Altruism works like that.
> >
> > This is one of the very few newsgroups still not inactive, so far as
> > ancient posters are concerned. That they do not respond positively
> > shows them up, for what they really are. Which is information for
> > orientals, not that they need to know.
> >
> > Well, this is an English language group so it is perfectly correct to
> > say that certain words used in English may not be given the same
> > regard as of yore, for the sake of truth, goodness and beauty.
>
> I've learnt something new. Until today, I thought there was no way to
> introduce racism into physics.

You must be excessively naive,
and/or completely ignorant of the history of physics.
Racist attacks on Einstein started immediately after he became famous,
in 1919, after Eddington's solar eclipse results were published.
There were even anti-Einstein mass rallies in Berlin,
fuelled by nasty press campaigns,
and Eistein even needed police protection for a while.

The theory of relativity was branded 'Jewish physics', hence wrong,
while good physics was branded as 'Aryan physics'.
Needless to say that those who were active in 'Aryan physics'
became fervent nazis, once that party had become available.

All this is still not dead of course:
anti-relativity nutters ofter are explicitly anti-semitic too.
No shortage of vile pamphleteering, if you search for a moment.

One positive result of all this has been that anyone
who pulls the 'racism' card in physics disqualifies himself
immediately and completely, in physics.
No problem of course for our resident genius.
Real physicists were not his intended audience to begin with,

Jan

On 2023-02-14 09:19:39 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/23 01:42, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 15:44:09 UTC+5:30, Kerr-Mudd, John
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:43:50 -0800 (PST) Arindam Banerjee
>>>> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> []
>>>>>>> Please understand, the law of conservation of energy is a
>>>>>>> canard by bunny-ah types.
>>>> []
>>>>
>>>> You might (or might not) do better posting this in a science NG.
>>>> Why you think you might get a better reception in an English Usage
>>>> NG is beyond me.
>>>
>>> I do post in science ngs. All my new ideas inphysics are archived in
>>> sci.physics. Useful for me, for referencing. And for many millions of
>>> physics students. Who must ask their teachers incovenient questions.
>>>
>>> People with physics background and white skins have been taunting me
>>> here, so I post here my new ideas and works, simply to annoy them.
>>> Because I can. Fun for me.
>>>
>>> The days of colonial obsequiousness are over, hopefully not just for
>>> me. My works and ideas mature over time, and I keep no secrets to
>>> myself. Altruism works like that.
>>>
>>> This is one of the very few newsgroups still not inactive, so far as
>>> ancient posters are concerned. That they do not respond positively
>>> shows them up, for what they really are. Which is information for
>>> orientals, not that they need to know.
>>>
>>> Well, this is an English language group so it is perfectly correct to
>>> say that certain words used in English may not be given the same
>>> regard as of yore, for the sake of truth, goodness and beauty.
>>
>> I've learnt something new. Until today, I thought there was no way to
>> introduce racism into physics.
>
> You must be excessively naive,
> and/or completely ignorant of the history of physics.
> Racist attacks on Einstein started immediately after he became famous,
> in 1919, after Eddington's solar eclipse results were published.
> There were even anti-Einstein mass rallies in Berlin,
> fuelled by nasty press campaigns,
> and Eistein even needed police protection for a while.
>
> The theory of relativity was branded 'Jewish physics', hence wrong,
> while good physics was branded as 'Aryan physics'.
> Needless to say that those who were active in 'Aryan physics'
> became fervent nazis, once that party had become available.

Some the Aryan scientists (one, anyway) were competent scientists.
Leuchs anhydride owes its name to Hermann Leuchs, who was a fervent
nazi and committed suicide when he learned that Hitler had died. By one
of those odd twists of fate his work formed the starting point for the
research of Michael Sela, an Israeli who was, until he died a year or
two ago, the oldest living notable chemist ("notable" in Wikipedia's
sense, i.e. there is a Wikiparticle about him).
>
> All this is still not dead of course:
> anti-relativity nutters ofter are explicitly anti-semitic too.
> No shortage of vile pamphleteering, if you search for a moment.
>
> One positive result of all this has been that anyone
> who pulls the 'racism' card in physics disqualifies himself
> immediately and completely, in physics.
> No problem of course for our resident genius.
> Real physicists were not his intended audience to begin with,
>
> Jan

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.