Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: do you believe we can quantize =?UTF-8?B?Z3Jhdml0eT8=?=
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 04:25:37 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <fca3349b925fcdfa219cd74e9ef20b9d@www.novabbs.com>
References: <j9oiptyjxgxi$.dlg@tomato.potato> <02cff57f49c5b9f6ef0d33441951cb1e@www.novabbs.com> <lqsstk-85j62.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <678b32e2a0eba553fdcf24b9489cc5d5@www.novabbs.com> <aflttk-b2682.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <06a143affa77a528480f8fb55f650787@www.novabbs.com> <o0gvtk-5gba2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <171469a06dcc0b480244123ef80cb6c7@www.novabbs.com> <76c0uk-4rvb2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <3eeda91637960d56227668bb451ce488@www.novabbs.com> <lqo0uk-7efc2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2093039"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="4CIDjmRjWbqC4EEN5EcU+HA+pIaOwwy51Z63DnRPIoA";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$yYRZcAZ3qYc.774hEp9xLeXeinCFaR4wPTBcAID7OFjH6Ag30b0se
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: d1111375bdddd1d0b42e6fbe96c9934b24d8a010
Bytes: 5787
Lines: 122

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 0:15:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip old crap>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is
>>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
>>>>>>> anything new?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing new there whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Keep on lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a new design
>>>>>> rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily
>>>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis
>>>>> with error bars that prove anything.  Just crackpot ravings.

Arindam has presented the most powerful proofs using video evidence,
lying fool.
>>>>
>>>> Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
>>>
>>> Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power
>>> source?
>>>
>>> Yes, nothing new there.

The DC source is only 12 volts. Show another rail gun which accelerates
a 4000gm bullet and weighs 8 Kg.

The weight of bullet to weight of gun including power supply is a few
orders of magnitude less than normal guns let alone rail guns.

That ratio is new.
>>>
>>> Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails?
>>>
>>> Yes, nothing new there.

New thing is the huge heaviness of the armature or bullet with respect
to the gun and its showing how it moves over the rails on a frame by
frame basis.

Penisnino, show the video of ANY gun where the movement of the bullet
within the barrel or on rails is videoed on a frame by frame basis.


As you cannot all you can do is insult Arindam by calling him names.

The smallness of your sort is well known. While disgusting it is not
surprising.


>>>
>>> Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the
>>> same equations of all other railguns since 1917?
>>>
>>> No, nothing new there.
>>>
>>> Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been
>>> built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns.
>>
>> Different designs, fool. Not one of them could provide enough momentum
>> for inertia violation the way Arindam's new design does.
>
> What are the force equations for this different design and where is the
> data analysis that shows them to be true, crackpot.
>
> What exactly is different about this design, crackpot?
>
>>>
>>> You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot.
>>
>> Lies. They are all given in detail online. Anyone can follow the links.
>
> I have found no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new in any of
> your links, crackpot.
>
>>>
>>> In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot?
>>
>> Proved reaction less.
>
> Proved by what since you have no data, no analysis, no math in any of
> your posts, i.e. nothing but videos of your feet crackpot.
>
>> Thus completing Arindam's PhD thesis at RMIT Melbourne not that he
>> wants anything from them any more.
>
> You mean the thesis that got you removed from the PhD program?
>
> If your written thesis was as laughable as your videos, it is no wonder
> you were removed crackpot.
>
>>
>> Enough satisfaction to have proved them and the physics world wrong.
>>
>> Anyway to give the P* its due that one now does say that Arindam did
>> indeed make a working model of a railgun. This goes against what the
>> final viva committee at RMIT thought which thought was repeated in this
>> newsgroup by whodat, Moroney, Alsing, etc. The viva committee said that
>> Arindam did NOT make a working model of a railgun so his thesis that it
>> was performing reactionlessly (thus violating Newtonian laws) was to be
>> dismissed.
>
> Of course it was dismissed and it still would be dismissed as videos of
> your feet prove nothing other than you have bad taste in footwear
> crackpot.