Note: This is the bulk of some correspondence I have had this January
with an old friend from IIT Kharagpur,

Note: This is the bulk of some correspondence I have had this January
with an old friend from IIT Kharagpur, my wingmate, mentor and
companion in RP Hall from 1973-78. Since he now holds a very
distinguished position in one of the largest computer companies in the
world, I have suppressed his identity. With his permission, and for
general interest, I release the following material for popular
consumption
Arindam Banerjee.


AB: Thanks, I will only put in my inputs and maybe some lines from
you, without referring to you in any way, and only describing you as
an old friend. I don't know when I will do that, maybe after my visit
to NZ.

As for antennas, it was my misfortune say to travel over 250 kms every
day for many days per year - in a horrid 4wd - in the 8 years of my
life as an antenna engineer, going from Ghaziabad to Sohna day after
day, where we have the largest antenna test site in India. I was in
direct charge of testing many antennas, all of which I modified and
quite a few of which I fully developed myself. A large part of
antenna performance is impedance matching - meaning that it has to
radiate out the power that is sent to it from the source (klystron,
whatever). Usually, a lot of it is sent back, and it is only over
some band of frequencies that it radiates more than half the power
sent to it. Thus, the measurement of "return loss" is a key issue,
and done using VSWR meters, network analysers sweeping over a range of
frequencies, etc. Then, of course, there is the radiation pattern
measurement. Even with that most expensive apparatus, it is difficult
to get exactly the same pattern with repetition. Conditions simply
changed from one time to another. It was not enough to have a
controlled environment at your test site, and you cannot control the
outside. So, we often prayed that we'd get the okay charts when we
took the inspectors. The latter fact shows how sceptical I as a
practical engineer am about claims from theoretical physicists that
they can measure anything in far outer space upto so many points of
decimals... Anyway, so far microwave antenna radiation is concerned,
there is absolutely no question of electrons jumping from one energy
level to another and emitting a quanta corresponding to the frequency
- the main issue is the length of the dipole (it should be totally
half wave, or full wave length) for proper tuning. Horn antennas have
larger bandwidth, as a waveguide is flared out - there the issue is
the interface between the coaxial and the waveguide, a lot of
empirical work has to be done. As you know, microwave frequencies are
much lower than light frequencies, and Einstein explained the
photoelectric effect (light waves involved, not microwave) with
quantum theory. But at which frequency did quantum theory "stop"? Is
it valid for light frequencies, and not valid at lower? If so, it is
not a very sound theory, is it? Now, when manufacturing has
progressed to such an extent that they can radiate light frequencies
using very small dipole antennas, surely there is no need for that
theory? I hope this explains my statement that perplexed you.

Ether - an universal massless infinitely elastic all pervading medium
- *has* to be there for the propagation of radio waves, for any kind
of wave motion requires a medium. But, according to the accepted
analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, it does not. In one of
my papers published on Internet, I have shown that the results of the
Michelson Morley experiment have been wrongly analysed, giving wrong
inferences. No one has challenged my paper with success or
conviction. So, that experiment does not disprove ether theory.
E=mcc was developed to explain the energy from the sun - 100 years ago
that was a great mystery - exactly why was the sun so hot? Now we
think that is because of fusion of H to He at the extremely hot core
of the sun - but then again, why should the core of the sun be
extremely hot? From the pressure of the mass above it? Yes, a few
hundred kilometers under the crust the pressure is very high, for the
value of g is still high, meaning there is still a lot of earth below
the magma level. So, since there is a lot of earth diameter causing
high g still left, the rocks can crush against each other, creating
high temperature and melting. But as we go more and more down to the
core, there is less and less earth below, and more and more thousands
of kilometers of earth on top, that unlike in the magma forming case
are now pulling the crushing rocks "up" with gravity pull a lot more,
creating thus less net pressure as we near the core. At the core, g
is zero, that we learnt even in school. So, though there are
thousands of kms of rock on all side, the these thousands of
kilometers of rock do *not* press upon any surface that has say tens
of thousands of kilometers of radius behind it. See what I mean?
Like, the core of the earth or sun could easily be a hollow space, and
we could float there nicely! The gravitational forces within the
earth could take the shape of such lines that can quite circumvent the
core. For example, if you keep a hollow steel ball within a rubber
ball, and press the rubber ball with all your might from all sides,
you won't affect anything within the steel ball, right? This is just
an analogy. With a bit of maths, and using the most basic formulas
relating to gravity as taught by Newton, we can make all this very
clear in a simple Excel sheet.

As for the famous experiment which apparently "proved" the general
theory, let us see it in a bit more detail. Einstein's theory was
that a large body, such as the sun, acts as a gravitational lens,
which can thus bend light like any normal lens. So positions of stars
were taken at night (no sun) and at the same place, in day at total
eclipse. Then, voila! At eclipse time all the stars were out of
their place - they behaved as if the sun was like a convex lens
bending the light. So, this was experimental proof of general
relativity - the sun did act as a gravitational lens, as predicted. A
huge effort of media work, popular science, popular science fiction,
movies etc. have convinced the population now. But, to me, there is a
more mundane explanation about the bending of light. The sun *did*
act as a lens, but not as a gravitational lens. It simply acted as an
optical lens. As we know now, around the sun there exists all sorts
of solar flares and eruptions, where masses are forced out from the
surface for many hundreds of thousand of miles. Of course, the masses
return to the sun because of the gravity, but in the process they
create a sort of atmosphere around the sun. Now, this only means that
light from the sun refracts through this higher medium, and accounts
for the positional displacement found for the eclipse. I now suspect,
Einstein and his backers knew this would happen, they very cunningly
did a hoax to convince people of the merits of relativity.

As for magnetism in fluids, that is a new thing. I have a physics
book on Electricity and Magnetism, I will look it up. Let us see.
While ions can circulate in heated spaces, and cause electricity and
thus magnetism, I cannot think how ions are naturally formed in the
earth's core, as the density is so high. Ions are formed from gaseous
states naturally, where electrons are rubbed off from collision.
Usually, the density of ionic matter is very low, but who knows what
may happen below us in the earth!

As for software storage, thanks to your initiative perhaps yesterday I
bought a 256MB USB memory stick for $49. Looks nice on my key chain,
but no doubt it will be very useful.

Best of luck,
Arindam.

Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2005 10:23 AM
To: Banerjee, Arindam
Subject: RE: Happy New Year with Arindam's Laws of Motion

Arindam,
feel free to post the notes chain on an appropriate newsgroup or
mailing list if you feel like. I don't expect to be flamed for staying
within the lines even if you don't remove my name, but please do so
anyway since I am using my work email address.

Regarding quantum theory and the design of antennas, I understand next
to nothing about the first and nothing about the second, so can't
understand the statement "In fact, they have made antennas at light
wave frequencies, and that if nothing else should debunk quantum
theory." However regarding Einstein's theories in general, numerous
experiments to prove the bending of space-time due to the
gravitational force of large bodies, and thus the bending of light
when passing close to large bodies, have apparently been demonstrated
with astronomical observations of distant galaxies. E.g., see this
picture showing gravitational lensing
(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990601.html). Off the top of my
head, I cannot recollect how space-time continuum and its warping due
to large bodies is related to e=mc^2, but in any case, by discounting
entire bodies of work such as relativity theory in one swell foop, you
are taking on more and more challenges to explain with alternate
points of view. Granted that even Einstein said "God does not play
dice" and discounted quantum theory, as do a whole boatload of string
theorists, so I agree that there is no absolute knowledge yet. On the
other hand, a bunch of quantum computer theorists, including some
IBMers at the New York research lab I think, are capturing attention -
so it is hard to tell what is real and feasible for a neophyte like
me.

Regarding the magnetism article, I thought he said that electrical
charges flowed in the hot liquid, causing a current and thus the
magnetism, which does not contradict the fact that permanent magnetism
disappears at higher temperatures. Need to go reread it more carefully
I suppose.

Back to more mundane storage software architecture issues ....

Regards.


AB: I read that explanation of the magnetic field, but he does not
show how a very hot core can support magentism. He is simply saying
that there has to be some source for the magnetism, that is all. I am
saying that too. But I am also saying that going by our experience on
the surface of the earth, what we do know is that magnetism does not
exist with high temperature. What we learnt in school was that if you
heat a permanent magnet, it loses its magnetism, as the heat causes
random changes in the dipole structures within the magnet. The
earth's rotation may give some order to the hot fluids inside it, like
it does with the trade winds.
That in fact may be the biggest reason for the magnetism, like some
orientation is given to the fluid motion and maybe that results in the
magnetic field, with conventional thinking. But as you note his ideas
are purely hypothetical, and essentially follow from the fixed notion
of a hot core. Why the hot core? Because we have magma, under the
earth's crust, and we know that continents drift on the magma. Now
this magma is caused by the pressure from the kilometers of rock,
which melts it, and on this melt the crust rests in sections. All
this is known. What is believed and taught is schools is that the
pressure keeps on building up, creating more heat and the core is thus
extremely hot. This I dispute. At the centre of the earth, or at the
centre of any large body, the net pressure is actually zero, for any
body placed there is pulled equally by all sides. So what we have is
pressure building up as we go to the core from the surface, peaking a
few hundred kilometers from the surface (creating the seas of magma)
but then diminishing to zero from the further thousands of kilometers
down to the core. Thus, below the sea of magma, as the pressure
diminishes, the rock hardens and also thus insultes the
superconducting core from heat from the magma (which mainly flows out
to outer space via the surface, more surface area there on the outer
side). What little energy goes to the core, is somehow converted to
the electric current and keeps it going, and also keeps the magnetic
field going. This is thus an admirable steady-state system, which is
beyond the scope of time - it can always exist the way it is. If you
posited a very hot core (why?) to begin with, then with conventional
thinking it must cool with time. But it has not - the existence of
life on earth billions of years ago shows that the temperature on the
surface was the same as it is now.

I hope you find my ideas interesting and challenging. I am thinking
of founding a new society of radical physics, though perhaps I'll be
the only member! Well, let's see. I will try to contact Debu. He
was more interested in my Bengali translations than my new physics,
when he visited me. But, apart from my other activities, I have used
my knowledge of small power tools (picked up when I was developing
radar antennas for BEL) to make what I believe is the world's first
space-raft. Meaning, a device which could move in outer space with
internal force. Unfortunately, its performance on Earth is as a
beached whale, friction effects are too much. But this wooden device,
is the best I could do with purely my own time and efforts and very
limited money. Also, the device did not work as I expected it to, but
led me to newer concepts involving far more complicated maths. So, I
need to do more experiments and I will do more modelling work later.
Still, all this is an exciting ongoing part of my life. As my wife
and family tolerates it, I can do it!

I certainly believe my ideas are much more correct than the present
ones. Entropy is a wrong idea, and a bad one that came without a
proper understanding of the nature of energy, and the theories of
relativity and quantum are absolutely junk. I have been an antenna
engineer for the first 8 years of my life, and I don't see how quantum
theory works with practical antennas. In fact, they have made
antennas at light wave frequencies, and that if nothing else should
debunk quantum theory.
Electromagnetic theory answers everything.

Why, it has been fine talking to you. If you permit me to, I will
post my communications to you to Usenet (keeping your name out of the
picture, of course.)

With best wishes to you and your family, and do keep up the yoga. I
go to the gym as regularly as possible.

Arindam.


Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2005 1:35 AM
To: Banerjee, Arindam
Subject: Re: Happy New Year with Arindam's Laws of Motion

Hello Arindam,
it is quite fascinating and encouraging to find that you are
exploring so many interesting (and controversial) ideas in science,
pursuing your love of literature, have taken up acting, are taking
good care of your family, and all of this while successfully pursuing
a full time career in a technical field. Quite amazing in fact. I
personally find it quite a challenge to just keep up with the (rather
heavy
technical) demands of my job as a software architect, spend some time
with my wife and kids, do some exercises regularly (yoga for the last
26 years, walking, etc.), and play the piano every day if possible,
which I have been learning formally for the last 4.5 years and tried
on my own for the 3 years before that. Though you do not need my
encouragement to explore life to the hilt (its in your genes no
doubt), you still have my wholehearted support. As we, the class of
78, approach the half-century mark soon, it would be too easy to get
bogged down by the thoughts of "old age" and the need to slow down.
Examples like yours, and on a lighter vein, the image of Timir Ghosh
dancing for hours in parties :-), should spur the rest of us on to
*not* slow down.

Regarding your ideas in physics, if you are rejecting the last 200
years of western physics, then indeed understanding your proposals
will require radical rethinking. You must have run them by Debashish
Guha ?
Though I don't know him much, he had a reputation as a radical
thinker.
As for my comments on your book on the Web, I would (time permitted)
first try to understand what the late Prof. Feynman had to say about
Newton's laws of motion, then read your repudiation of those laws, and
then get back to you with my thoughts. Since that approach presumes,
implicitly, that Feynman's understanding and analysis of Newton's laws
are reasonable, perhaps it is flawed (in your opinion), but in any
case, that is all I can offer.

Regarding earth's magentic field (and that of some of the other
planets), here is a brief explanation by a traditional (geo)physicist:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec99/944316318.As.r.html
Given that I have spent the last 24+ years immersed in software, and
have forgotten even my EE, let alone the physics I studied, it would
be hard for me to find flaws in his theories. Even he admits that many
of the phenomena are unproven hypothesis and not everything is well
understood. However, the theories of how circulating currents exist in
the presence of hot, fluid, planetary interiors, spurred on by the
earth's rotation, seem reasonable based on my quick reading and my
lack of deep knowledge of physics.

More later on your other theories .... not sure how much later. So
many deadlines, so little time .... :-(

Regards.


AB: Take as much time as you wish. I am writing down my new ideas in
brief, below. Basically I am saying that:
1. the earth, sun, Jupiter have constant (on the average) magnetic
fields. (fact) 2. As per current knowledge of physics, you cannot have
a constant magnetic field without a permanent magnet or an constant
electric current. (fact).
3. The current or the magent must be contained within the magnetic
field (fact).
4. So there has got to be a permanent magnet or permanently
circulating constant electric current within the earth (near the core,
say).
(inference)
5. Permanent magentism cannot exist with high temperature - the
magnetism is lost. (fact).
6. Constantly circulating currents need very cold temperatures - the
superconductivity phenomenon. (fact).
7. So, the core of the earth, sun, Jupiter has to be very cold to
support either permanent magnet or superconducting current
(inference).
8. If the core of the sun or any star is cold, it is not hot!
(inference).
9. If it is not hot, the energy of the sun is *not* caused by fusion
as per modern physics theories of relativity (inference).
10. But the sun is very hot, and gives out lots of energy. (fact) 11.
How and why does the sun give out lots of energy? (Question) 12. From
Arindam Banerjee's mathematical derivation for unlimited energy.
(Answer)

If you retain your interest after the following, then I will send you
some articles by me elaborating the above points. They prove that the
results from the Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment were
analysed wrongly, and do not disprove the existence of ether. The
theories of relativity are thus complete nonsense, and the quantum
theory is unnecessary along with the second law of thermodynamics
(entropy is a useless and meaningless concept). Basically, I am
saying that the entire physics of the last 200 years is wrong, and
that is so because 200 years ago they did not make the mathematical
derivation for unlimited energy.

Professional physicists (in my mind, by far the greatest evils on this
planet) consider me a crank. There is no more communication with
them, as they reject me flatly without any explanation. All my papers
have been rejected without ceremony.
So it takes not a little courage to be by my side, in this all
important matter. However, my family and also extended family and
quite a lot of other people support me to the best of their ability,
and I am very happy about this.
What I am trying to do is to make something move with internal force
(without friction, gravity, that is). I have done experiments in this
line, and they are quite promising. I need lots more help in this,
though - the whole thing is much more difficult than I thought
earlier.

Kindly think over the above points, and do consult as many physicists
as may be interested. I hope they have more curiosity in US than in
India and Australia. Here, they think that whatever happens in the US
is the ulitmate, so there! Lousy colonial mentality.

Anyway, best of luck and with lots of good wishes, Arindam.

PS Sorry I could not contact Sumanta, will do as soon as I can. Will
be going to NZ on a holiday from 14-28 Jan.

Arindam,
I took a sneak peek at your Web site and skimmed through some of
the chapters, but did not do justice to the material (I am after all
at work, so have to limit extra-curricular activities :-)). You have
indeed been quite active, and in more areas than I suspected ! I will
certainly take a look at the material in more depth (including the
math in the
Appendices) at a later date. Unfortunately the career path I have
chosen calls for a fair amount of work outside the normal 40 hour week
(is there such a thing any more ?), and so understanding and
critiquing your ideas will take some time. I hope you have/will run it
by mainstream physicists also. I myself enjoyed physics in school and
college, and have started (and restarted) reading Feynman's lecture
notes in physics more than once, but alas not completed even Volume I.

Its also great to hear that you have branched out into acting, and
have a very supportive family and community around you. What else does
one need ?

Regards.


In the meantime, if you can access our adda website:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/index.htm

You can get some fair idea of what I have been up to recently (till
2001 that is) in the realm of physics, family and writing. There is
no one whose opinion I will value higher than yours. I humbly
remember how your notes were like mother's milk to me, back in the IIT
days. Also, you were the one who kindly wrote the Bengali script for
the essays and stories that I won prizes for, as I could not write
Bengali properly then as now. But, that has not prevented me from
translating the sonnets of Shakespeare, the first 89 plus one extra.
You can see them if you go to google groups, and put in such keywords
as Arindam Banerjee Translation of Shakespeare's Sonnet # then you
should get the whole lot in Roman script. I was helped in doing that
by my new-found acting ability, thanks largely to my wife and other
dedicated amateur Bengali theatre people here.

Looking forward to hearing from you, and with the highest regards,
Arindam.

Note: This is the bulk of some correspondence I have had this

with an old friend from IIT Kharagpur, my wingmate, mentor and
companion in RP Hall from 1973-78. Since he now holds a very
distinguished position in one of the largest computer companies in

world, I have suppressed his identity. With his permission, and for
general interest, I release the following material for popular
consumption
Arindam Banerjee.


AB: Thanks, I will only put in my inputs and maybe some lines from
you, without referring to you in any way, and only describing you as
an old friend. I don't know when I will do that, maybe after my

to NZ.

As for antennas, it was my misfortune say to travel over 250 kms

day for many days per year - in a horrid 4wd - in the 8 years of my
life as an antenna engineer, going from Ghaziabad to Sohna day after
day, where we have the largest antenna test site in India. I was in
direct charge of testing many antennas, all of which I modified and
quite a few of which I fully developed myself. A large part of
antenna performance is impedance matching - meaning that it has to
radiate out the power that is sent to it from the source (klystron,
whatever). Usually, a lot of it is sent back, and it is only over
some band of frequencies that it radiates more than half the power
sent to it. Thus, the measurement of "return loss" is a key issue,
and done using VSWR meters, network analysers sweeping over a range

frequencies, etc. Then, of course, there is the radiation pattern
measurement. Even with that most expensive apparatus, it is

to get exactly the same pattern with repetition. Conditions simply
changed from one time to another. It was not enough to have a
controlled environment at your test site, and you cannot control the
outside. So, we often prayed that we'd get the okay charts when we
took the inspectors. The latter fact shows how sceptical I as a
practical engineer am about claims from theoretical physicists that
they can measure anything in far outer space upto so many points of
decimals... Anyway, so far microwave antenna radiation is concerned,
there is absolutely no question of electrons jumping from one energy
level to another and emitting a quanta corresponding to the frequency
- the main issue is the length of the dipole (it should be totally
half wave, or full wave length) for proper tuning. Horn antennas

larger bandwidth, as a waveguide is flared out - there the issue is
the interface between the coaxial and the waveguide, a lot of
empirical work has to be done. As you know, microwave frequencies

much lower than light frequencies, and Einstein explained the
photoelectric effect (light waves involved, not microwave) with
quantum theory. But at which frequency did quantum theory "stop"?

it valid for light frequencies, and not valid at lower? If so, it is
not a very sound theory, is it? Now, when manufacturing has
progressed to such an extent that they can radiate light frequencies
using very small dipole antennas, surely there is no need for that
theory? I hope this explains my statement that perplexed you.

Ether - an universal massless infinitely elastic all pervading medium
- *has* to be there for the propagation of radio waves, for any kind
of wave motion requires a medium. But, according to the accepted
analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, it does not. In one of
my papers published on Internet, I have shown that the results of the
Michelson Morley experiment have been wrongly analysed, giving wrong
inferences. No one has challenged my paper with success or
conviction. So, that experiment does not disprove ether theory.
E=mcc was developed to explain the energy from the sun - 100 years

that was a great mystery - exactly why was the sun so hot? Now we
think that is because of fusion of H to He at the extremely hot core
of the sun - but then again, why should the core of the sun be
extremely hot? From the pressure of the mass above it? Yes, a few
hundred kilometers under the crust the pressure is very high, for the
value of g is still high, meaning there is still a lot of earth below
the magma level. So, since there is a lot of earth diameter causing
high g still left, the rocks can crush against each other, creating
high temperature and melting. But as we go more and more down to the
core, there is less and less earth below, and more and more thousands
of kilometers of earth on top, that unlike in the magma forming case
are now pulling the crushing rocks "up" with gravity pull a lot more,
creating thus less net pressure as we near the core. At the core, g
is zero, that we learnt even in school. So, though there are
thousands of kms of rock on all side, the these thousands of
kilometers of rock do *not* press upon any surface that has say tens
of thousands of kilometers of radius behind it. See what I mean?
Like, the core of the earth or sun could easily be a hollow space,

we could float there nicely! The gravitational forces within the
earth could take the shape of such lines that can quite circumvent

core. For example, if you keep a hollow steel ball within a rubber
ball, and press the rubber ball with all your might from all sides,
you won't affect anything within the steel ball, right? This is just
an analogy. With a bit of maths, and using the most basic formulas
relating to gravity as taught by Newton, we can make all this very
clear in a simple Excel sheet.

As for the famous experiment which apparently "proved" the general
theory, let us see it in a bit more detail. Einstein's theory was
that a large body, such as the sun, acts as a gravitational lens,
which can thus bend light like any normal lens. So positions of

were taken at night (no sun) and at the same place, in day at total
eclipse. Then, voila! At eclipse time all the stars were out of
their place - they behaved as if the sun was like a convex lens
bending the light. So, this was experimental proof of general
relativity - the sun did act as a gravitational lens, as predicted.

huge effort of media work, popular science, popular science fiction,
movies etc. have convinced the population now. But, to me, there is

more mundane explanation about the bending of light. The sun *did*
act as a lens, but not as a gravitational lens. It simply acted as

optical lens. As we know now, around the sun there exists all sorts
of solar flares and eruptions, where masses are forced out from the
surface for many hundreds of thousand of miles. Of course, the

return to the sun because of the gravity, but in the process they
create a sort of atmosphere around the sun. Now, this only means

light from the sun refracts through this higher medium, and accounts
for the positional displacement found for the eclipse. I now

Einstein and his backers knew this would happen, they very cunningly
did a hoax to convince people of the merits of relativity.

As for magnetism in fluids, that is a new thing. I have a physics
book on Electricity and Magnetism, I will look it up. Let us see.
While ions can circulate in heated spaces, and cause electricity and
thus magnetism, I cannot think how ions are naturally formed in the
earth's core, as the density is so high. Ions are formed from

states naturally, where electrons are rubbed off from collision.
Usually, the density of ionic matter is very low, but who knows what
may happen below us in the earth!

As for software storage, thanks to your initiative perhaps yesterday

bought a 256MB USB memory stick for $49. Looks nice on my key chain,
but no doubt it will be very useful.

Best of luck,
Arindam.

Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2005 10:23 AM
To: Banerjee, Arindam
Subject: RE: Happy New Year with Arindam's Laws of Motion

Arindam,
feel free to post the notes chain on an appropriate newsgroup

mailing list if you feel like. I don't expect to be flamed for

within the lines even if you don't remove my name, but please do so
anyway since I am using my work email address.

Regarding quantum theory and the design of antennas, I understand

to nothing about the first and nothing about the second, so can't
understand the statement "In fact, they have made antennas at light
wave frequencies, and that if nothing else should debunk quantum
theory." However regarding Einstein's theories in general, numerous
experiments to prove the bending of space-time due to the
gravitational force of large bodies, and thus the bending of light
when passing close to large bodies, have apparently been demonstrated
with astronomical observations of distant galaxies. E.g., see this
picture showing gravitational lensing
(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990601.html). Off the top of my
head, I cannot recollect how space-time continuum and its warping due
to large bodies is related to e=mc^2, but in any case, by discounting
entire bodies of work such as relativity theory in one swell foop,

are taking on more and more challenges to explain with alternate
points of view. Granted that even Einstein said "God does not play
dice" and discounted quantum theory, as do a whole boatload of string
theorists, so I agree that there is no absolute knowledge yet. On the
other hand, a bunch of quantum computer theorists, including some
IBMers at the New York research lab I think, are capturing attention

so it is hard to tell what is real and feasible for a neophyte like
me.

Regarding the magnetism article, I thought he said that electrical
charges flowed in the hot liquid, causing a current and thus the
magnetism, which does not contradict the fact that permanent

disappears at higher temperatures. Need to go reread it more

I suppose.

Back to more mundane storage software architecture issues ....

Regards.


AB: I read that explanation of the magnetic field, but he does not
show how a very hot core can support magentism. He is simply saying
that there has to be some source for the magnetism, that is all. I

saying that too. But I am also saying that going by our experience

the surface of the earth, what we do know is that magnetism does not
exist with high temperature. What we learnt in school was that if

heat a permanent magnet, it loses its magnetism, as the heat causes
random changes in the dipole structures within the magnet. The
earth's rotation may give some order to the hot fluids inside it,

it does with the trade winds.
That in fact may be the biggest reason for the magnetism, like some
orientation is given to the fluid motion and maybe that results in

magnetic field, with conventional thinking. But as you note his

are purely hypothetical, and essentially follow from the fixed notion
of a hot core. Why the hot core? Because we have magma, under the
earth's crust, and we know that continents drift on the magma. Now
this magma is caused by the pressure from the kilometers of rock,
which melts it, and on this melt the crust rests in sections. All
this is known. What is believed and taught is schools is that the
pressure keeps on building up, creating more heat and the core is

extremely hot. This I dispute. At the centre of the earth, or at

centre of any large body, the net pressure is actually zero, for any
body placed there is pulled equally by all sides. So what we have is
pressure building up as we go to the core from the surface, peaking a
few hundred kilometers from the surface (creating the seas of magma)
but then diminishing to zero from the further thousands of kilometers
down to the core. Thus, below the sea of magma, as the pressure
diminishes, the rock hardens and also thus insultes the
superconducting core from heat from the magma (which mainly flows out
to outer space via the surface, more surface area there on the outer
side). What little energy goes to the core, is somehow converted to
the electric current and keeps it going, and also keeps the magnetic
field going. This is thus an admirable steady-state system, which is
beyond the scope of time - it can always exist the way it is. If you
posited a very hot core (why?) to begin with, then with conventional
thinking it must cool with time. But it has not - the existence of
life on earth billions of years ago shows that the temperature on the
surface was the same as it is now.

I hope you find my ideas interesting and challenging. I am thinking
of founding a new society of radical physics, though perhaps I'll be
the only member! Well, let's see. I will try to contact Debu. He
was more interested in my Bengali translations than my new physics,
when he visited me. But, apart from my other activities, I have used
my knowledge of small power tools (picked up when I was developing
radar antennas for BEL) to make what I believe is the world's first
space-raft. Meaning, a device which could move in outer space with
internal force. Unfortunately, its performance on Earth is as a
beached whale, friction effects are too much. But this wooden

is the best I could do with purely my own time and efforts and very
limited money. Also, the device did not work as I expected it to,

led me to newer concepts involving far more complicated maths. So, I
need to do more experiments and I will do more modelling work later.
Still, all this is an exciting ongoing part of my life. As my wife
and family tolerates it, I can do it!

I certainly believe my ideas are much more correct than the present
ones. Entropy is a wrong idea, and a bad one that came without a
proper understanding of the nature of energy, and the theories of
relativity and quantum are absolutely junk. I have been an antenna
engineer for the first 8 years of my life, and I don't see how

theory works with practical antennas. In fact, they have made
antennas at light wave frequencies, and that if nothing else should
debunk quantum theory.
Electromagnetic theory answers everything.

Why, it has been fine talking to you. If you permit me to, I will
post my communications to you to Usenet (keeping your name out of the
picture, of course.)

With best wishes to you and your family, and do keep up the yoga. I
go to the gym as regularly as possible.

Arindam.


Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2005 1:35 AM
To: Banerjee, Arindam
Subject: Re: Happy New Year with Arindam's Laws of Motion

Hello Arindam,
it is quite fascinating and encouraging to find that you are
exploring so many interesting (and controversial) ideas in science,
pursuing your love of literature, have taken up acting, are taking
good care of your family, and all of this while successfully pursuing
a full time career in a technical field. Quite amazing in fact. I
personally find it quite a challenge to just keep up with the (rather
heavy
technical) demands of my job as a software architect, spend some time
with my wife and kids, do some exercises regularly (yoga for the last
26 years, walking, etc.), and play the piano every day if possible,
which I have been learning formally for the last 4.5 years and tried
on my own for the 3 years before that. Though you do not need my
encouragement to explore life to the hilt (its in your genes no
doubt), you still have my wholehearted support. As we, the class of
78, approach the half-century mark soon, it would be too easy to get
bogged down by the thoughts of "old age" and the need to slow down.
Examples like yours, and on a lighter vein, the image of Timir Ghosh
dancing for hours in parties :-), should spur the rest of us on to
*not* slow down.

Regarding your ideas in physics, if you are rejecting the last 200
years of western physics, then indeed understanding your proposals
will require radical rethinking. You must have run them by Debashish
Guha ?
Though I don't know him much, he had a reputation as a radical
thinker.
As for my comments on your book on the Web, I would (time permitted)
first try to understand what the late Prof. Feynman had to say about
Newton's laws of motion, then read your repudiation of those laws,

then get back to you with my thoughts. Since that approach presumes,
implicitly, that Feynman's understanding and analysis of Newton's

are reasonable, perhaps it is flawed (in your opinion), but in any
case, that is all I can offer.

Regarding earth's magentic field (and that of some of the other
planets), here is a brief explanation by a traditional

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec99/944316318.As.r.html
Given that I have spent the last 24+ years immersed in software, and
have forgotten even my EE, let alone the physics I studied, it would
be hard for me to find flaws in his theories. Even he admits that

of the phenomena are unproven hypothesis and not everything is well
understood. However, the theories of how circulating currents exist

the presence of hot, fluid, planetary interiors, spurred on by the
earth's rotation, seem reasonable based on my quick reading and my
lack of deep knowledge of physics.

More later on your other theories .... not sure how much later. So
many deadlines, so little time .... :-(

Regards.


AB: Take as much time as you wish. I am writing down my new ideas in
brief, below. Basically I am saying that:
1. the earth, sun, Jupiter have constant (on the average) magnetic
fields. (fact) 2. As per current knowledge of physics, you cannot

a constant magnetic field without a permanent magnet or an constant
electric current. (fact).
3. The current or the magent must be contained within the magnetic
field (fact).
4. So there has got to be a permanent magnet or permanently
circulating constant electric current within the earth (near the

say).
(inference)
5. Permanent magentism cannot exist with high temperature - the
magnetism is lost. (fact).
6. Constantly circulating currents need very cold temperatures - the
superconductivity phenomenon. (fact).
7. So, the core of the earth, sun, Jupiter has to be very cold to
support either permanent magnet or superconducting current
(inference).
8. If the core of the sun or any star is cold, it is not hot!
(inference).
9. If it is not hot, the energy of the sun is *not* caused by fusion
as per modern physics theories of relativity (inference).
10. But the sun is very hot, and gives out lots of energy. (fact) 11.
How and why does the sun give out lots of energy? (Question) 12. From
Arindam Banerjee's mathematical derivation for unlimited energy.
(Answer)

If you retain your interest after the following, then I will send you
some articles by me elaborating the above points. They prove that

results from the Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment were
analysed wrongly, and do not disprove the existence of ether. The
theories of relativity are thus complete nonsense, and the quantum
theory is unnecessary along with the second law of thermodynamics
(entropy is a useless and meaningless concept). Basically, I am
saying that the entire physics of the last 200 years is wrong, and
that is so because 200 years ago they did not make the mathematical
derivation for unlimited energy.

Professional physicists (in my mind, by far the greatest evils on

planet) consider me a crank. There is no more communication with
them, as they reject me flatly without any explanation. All my papers
have been rejected without ceremony.
So it takes not a little courage to be by my side, in this all
important matter. However, my family and also extended family and
quite a lot of other people support me to the best of their ability,
and I am very happy about this.
What I am trying to do is to make something move with internal force
(without friction, gravity, that is). I have done experiments in

line, and they are quite promising. I need lots more help in this,
though - the whole thing is much more difficult than I thought
earlier.

Kindly think over the above points, and do consult as many physicists
as may be interested. I hope they have more curiosity in US than in
India and Australia. Here, they think that whatever happens in the

is the ulitmate, so there! Lousy colonial mentality.

Anyway, best of luck and with lots of good wishes, Arindam.

PS Sorry I could not contact Sumanta, will do as soon as I can. Will
be going to NZ on a holiday from 14-28 Jan.

Arindam,
I took a sneak peek at your Web site and skimmed through some

the chapters, but did not do justice to the material (I am after all
at work, so have to limit extra-curricular activities :-)). You have
indeed been quite active, and in more areas than I suspected ! I will
certainly take a look at the material in more depth (including the
math in the
Appendices) at a later date. Unfortunately the career path I have
chosen calls for a fair amount of work outside the normal 40 hour

(is there such a thing any more ?), and so understanding and
critiquing your ideas will take some time. I hope you have/will run

by mainstream physicists also. I myself enjoyed physics in school and
college, and have started (and restarted) reading Feynman's lecture
notes in physics more than once, but alas not completed even Volume

Its also great to hear that you have branched out into acting, and
have a very supportive family and community around you. What else

one need ?

Regards.


In the meantime, if you can access our adda website:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/index.htm

You can get some fair idea of what I have been up to recently (till
2001 that is) in the realm of physics, family and writing. There is
no one whose opinion I will value higher than yours. I humbly
remember how your notes were like mother's milk to me, back in the

days. Also, you were the one who kindly wrote the Bengali script for
the essays and stories that I won prizes for, as I could not write
Bengali properly then as now. But, that has not prevented me from
translating the sonnets of Shakespeare, the first 89 plus one extra.
You can see them if you go to google groups, and put in such keywords
as Arindam Banerjee Translation of Shakespeare's Sonnet # then you
should get the whole lot in Roman script. I was helped in doing that
by my new-found acting ability, thanks largely to my wife and other
dedicated amateur Bengali theatre people here.

Looking forward to hearing from you, and with the highest regards,
Arindam.