Controversial ideas in physics is arindam purana over yet

Dear Gururaj, The following is a brief description of my new ideas in physics. I have tried to make it as simple as I could. I could give you more detailed articles. In particular, I will go into the details of the MM experiment. You may have already seen that article in Usenet in the top post of the

thread "Discussions in Relativity" in sci.physics. I would greatly value your comments. Please feel free to forward this post to whoever you think will be interested. I would value the chance of meeting informed criticism. So far I have got only indifference from the physics community - at the best! With regards, Arindam Banerjee.

First of all, I would like to thank all my countrymen (specially those buttociated with the print media) who have given encouragement to my revolutionary ideas that will transform the future of the human race, when proved correct beyond doubt through proper experimental means. In the Western world, where I work for my living, I experienced nothing but polite indifference at best. If nothing else, I have proved the value of nationalism, and how heart-warming and necessary it is! Also, from the

vehement and totally unreasoned denunciation of my ideas by an Indian Government employee, one Garg, I have also exposed the depths of ignorance and presumption of pseudo-scientists; and indicated the havoc these creatures can do for genuine progress, when placed in important positions.

My father - who has done so much to promote my ideas - has asked me to write a detailed article about my new ideas. Some of them have already been published in brief in the July 14, 2003 issue of the Outlook India magazine, but it appears that the lay public still does not properly understand them. Specifically, I am asked to write why I consider Einstein's theory of relativity, and his famous formula, e=mcc, to be completely wrong; and exactly how I derive my alternative formula for the creation and destruction of energy, which intrinsically not only indicates the possible generation of unlimited energy without any need for burning fossil fuel or use of radioactivity, but also offers the design for making crafts capable of unlimited acceleration, to the stars.

An entirely new picture of the universe - a far more exciting one!, and one in which the human race can play a far larger part - arises from my ideas. Many existing theories and notions are simply thrown out. I know that this is a painful process, but it is also a most necessary one. We have to correct the 19th century not-quite-right physics, and completely do away with the 20th century Einsteinian physics. In my book "To the Stars!" available at our "adda" website the development of my ideas, then in a nascent stage. With time, and further thought, I have refined them, and now find them explaining the basic physics of the universe (such as the reason for the sun's energy; the Sun's and

Earth's magnetic field; the the enormous wind energies in the outer planets, which were so far thought to be cold balls of gas till NASA's Voyager came in for a close look) in a much more simple and convincing manner than hitherto attempted.

That the entire basis of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, is in all probablilty completely false, can be understood by tackling its most basic buttumption. That is, the speed of light is invariant. Topple this, and the whole structure of modern (20th century) physics topples.

What sustains the idea that the speed of light is invariant, is the Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment. The null result there apparently shows that the speed of the light in the direction of earth's motion is the same as the speed of light in the direction at right angles to earth's motion. Going by the conventional thinking of the time, the speed of light should be c+v when emitted in the direction of earth's motion, and c-v when emitted in the direction opposite to earth's motion. Where c is the speed of light, and v is velocity of the earth.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was directed to finding the time difference between two returning monochromatic beams of light split at right angles by a partially coated mirror. One part went in the direction of the earth's motion, and the other at right angles. They were both reflected back, after travelling the same distance very accurately measured. The time difference between these beams should be non-zero, according to the theory, and could be detected using interferometry.

So what was to be the time difference? In the 90 degee path, the time for return was simple - it was only 2s-c, where s is the separation. In the other path, the time was s-(c+v) on the forward path, and s-(c-v) on the return path. Or 2s-(cc - vv) or 2s-c(1 - vv-cc). So the time difference was there, being 2s1-(1 - vv-cc) - 1-c and that was expected to show up by the interferometer. However, much painstaking work apparently showed that such a time difference did not existing, leading to the belief that the

speed of light c always remained the same no matter what the velocities of the sources and sensors.

However, there is a hideous bungle involved in the whole experimental process, and I believe I am the first one to point it out.

What is being buttumed and taken for granted by everyone is that the distance s between the splitting mirror and the mirror placed in the direction of the earth's motion remains the same so far as the movement of light is concerned. Yes, to a person on earth, it remains the same in every practical measurement sense, and this has been the key reason for the bungle.

Now, look at it from the point of view of the light just coming out of the partially silvered mirror. It has to reach the reflecting mirror. We all think it has to go a distance s. But is it really so? Remember, the earth is moving, and by the time the light has covered the distance s, the mirror has also further moved with respect to its earlier position by a distance vt, where t=s-(c+v). In short, the distance the light has to travel before it undergoes reflection is s + sv-(c+v) as a first approximation, negating more rigorous analysis. Similarly, on the return path the light travels the shorter distance s - sv-(c-v).

In the direction towards the mirror, the length traveled by light is thus s + vt, where t is the time taken to reach the reflecting mirror. But t is also equal to (s + vt)-(c + v). From this equation, we easily derive t=s-c. Similarly, on the return path t = (s - vt)-(c - v) and from this also we get t=s-c.

Thus, the Michelson-Morley experiment simply does not prove that the speed of light is invariant. However, this is the First Postulate of the Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Using this postulate, Einstein derived his famous equation, holding as actual fact that mbutt becomes immensely large when nearing the speed of light; length becomes near-zero at the speed of light; and similar very strange things! The public never believed all that, till they experienced the fact of nuclear plants which they were told was based upon the theory of e=mcc, for which the new law of conservation of mbutt and energy was conjured up.

The Einsteinians went further. They explained that the energy of the sun derived from its very hot core, which was so hot that it caused fusion of hydrogen atoms to helium, the way hydrogen plants are supposed to work. Somehow a lot of mbutt was lost in the process, and that was converted to energy. So, the sun is essentially a huge Hydrogen plant, continuously exploding!

However, this theory does not quite explain the energy emitted by smaller, but still very large bodies, like our own planet Earth. The current explanation, given in my daughter's physics textbook, is that there is a lot of natural radioactivity in the earth's core. This is on the top of the standard theory that the Earth's core is molten iron to begin with (and that is being kept hot with radioactivity on a more or less constant basis).

The Einsteinians also derive support for their theory from far space. They seem to have located black holes very far away, and the existence of such black holes, they claim, confirm their theory.

What the Einsteinians cannot explain, the gloss over. They simply ignore speculation about the reason for the existence of the very strong magnetic fields of large bodies like the Sun and Jupiter, and the lesser but still undeniable magnetic field of the Earth.

requires either a large permanent magnet, or a continuously circulating electric

current. We cannot have either in the core of the sun or the earth, if we agree that the core is very hot. For heated iron loses its magnetism, and no one says that it is possible to get any magnetic field from molten iron! Similarly, while we can get a continuously circulating electric current in a superconducting environment, that can only be achieved at temperatures nearing absolute zero, or around -270 degrees Centigrade.

But according to Einsteinians, it is necessary to reach temperatures of a few million degrees at the core of the sun, to initiate the fusion necessary for all the sun's energy generated according to their formula e=mcc. The main activity of much-funded, and highly publicized, hot fusion research (getting unlimited energy from tamed hydrogen plants on earth) consists of realizing such very high temperatures.

But does the core of the sun really have to be very hot? Can it be very cold instead? On the surface (literally!) it looks like the former is true. All that energy must come from inside. We know from volcanoes on Earth, and from continental drift, that it gets hotter and hotter inside the Earth, till the rocks melt into fluid magma, and entire land mbuttes are actually floating on this layer of molten rock. So, if we extend this argument, that it simply gets hotter, on a linear basis, we arrive at a very high temperature figure for the core. But this is not compatible with any known reason for the undeniable existence of the Earth's magnetic field!

Let us take a journey to the centre of the Earth. Let us say it is a hot day, to begin with. It gets cool as we go a few meters below the surface - in all the underground caves I have visited in Australia, the temperature is very even and remains constant throughout the year. However, several kilometers down the pressure increases because of the mbuttes of the top

layers, and the rocks start getting crushed. The temperature also rises. Finally, the rocks melt, and we are in a sea of molten rock! This sea of rock is pretty deep - it never seems to end. However, we are feeling a

sense of lightness - we are not getting crushed so much! There is so much matter now on top of us (say we are now 5000 Km below the surface) that the pull of gravity of the matter on top of us is going against the pull of the matter below us. Because of this lack of constriction, the pressure is

effectively less, and the temperature gets lower, till the rock solidifies. Now, as we near the core, there is less and less crushing - the mbuttes on top, instead of crushing us against the much huger mbuttes below us (as happened a few miles beneath the surface) are now so large, they have a

strong countering gravitational pull. At the core of the earth, we have no net force upon us at all - we are thus weightless. Since Pressure is Force-Area, there is no Pressure upon us. And since Temperature is related to Pressure, zero Pressure means zero Temperature. The solid layers of rock below the molten layers have insulated the core from the heat - the heat energy that does seep in gets converted to electric current, permanently circulating in the superconducting environment of the very cold core of the Earth. In short, the temperature rises, and then falls to zero, as we proceed from the surface to the centre.

Similarly, we can account for both the energies and magnetic fields of the Sun and the planet Jupiter. Their cores are also very cold, and thus can support strong superconducting currents that create the magnetic fields.

Evidently, energy is being continuously created from the very fact of the largeness of huge bodies - and it is being continuously being destroyed as well. This, by the way, directly violates what we call the First Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Conservation of Energy. Such laws are valid only in a limited setting (where "velocity addition effects" do not take place). The Law of Conservation of Energy is not really old - it was stated only in the nineteenth century by the German scientist von Helmholtz, two centuries after Newton.

In my book I have shown that by dropping a single word from Newton's First Law of Motion changes the way we may perceive the world. If a body can be made to accelerate using internal force, it gains extra energy than what is put in; this extra energy vanishes (is destroyed, or is lost, or just vanishes) as it decelerates using internal force. If external force is

involved in the deceleration process, then the surplus energy gained can be used.

Only experiment can prove the worth of my ideas. But when proved right, they will bring us to the shore of unlimited possibilities.

To come to the General Theory of Relativity now - that was apparently "proved" during a total eclipse of the sun. The positions of the stars

around the sun, then became visible. Their measured positions differed from the estimated positions by an amount, it is claimed, that was predicted by the General Theory. Which indicated that the Sun acted as a gravitational lens, and bent the light waves, so that the stars appeared to be in different positions from what is estimated from nightly observations (when there is no Sun around to act as a gravitational lens). That the Sun, or for that matter any mbutt, acts as a gravitational lens to bend light, comes as a consequence of the General Theory.

Let us now consider a more mundane explanation for this phenomenon. We all know that light bends (refracts) when going from a lighter to a denser medium. Now, around the sun there is a lot of gaseous matter, and the density thus should be greater than vacuum. So light from the stars must naturally bend around periphery of the sun - one can only expect the stars to be in a different position during a solar eclipse. Nothing really remarkable here!

Finally, nuclear plants. They put the seal of approval for e=mcc. Where can all that energy come from, if not destruction of matter, as long predicted? However, in my book and also the article I wrote for Outlook, I have come up with a much more satisfactory equation for this energy, that does not involve destruction of mbutt, namely, e=mvvN(N - 1-k). Briefly, N means

number of velocity addition steps, and v is the increase of velocity per collision step. Now, in the nuclear process, we know that atoms split at a very fast rate, and collide with other atoms to accelerate the process dramatically. My equation shows that process very clearly indeed. N and v could be very large numbers! Also, while m could be the mbutt of the active radioactive matter to begin with, after its complete disruption, the particles would hit other surrounding particles with great velocity - the atomic plant is simply one grand illustration of internal forces creating a lot of energy that is dramatically released.

The following is taken from my article published in Outlook, July 15, 2003.

Let us buttume, for the sake of argument, that Newton's First Law of Motion is wrong - that is, a body can move using its internal force, generated by expenditure of its internal energy, and clever engineering processes. Then the consequences become very interesting. If the body increases its velocity v as a result of an internally induced acceleration a over a time period t, then no matter what its initial velocity was with respect to any initial reference, its final speed will be that initial velocity plus v. Thus, if v=20 Km-hr, the same amount of internal energy has to be spent to raise the speed from say 100 Km-hr to 120 Km-hr, as to raise the speed from 1000 Km-hr to 1020 Km-hr.

Consider a body, on a frictionless surface. You are in a vehicle beside it, and you want to move the body at the same speed as your vehicle. You give a push, and the body accelerates till it reaches say 10 Km-hr and then keeps on sliding. You speed your vehicle to 10 Km-hr, and then give the body a push using the same force as earlier. The body then reaches 20 Km-hr, and you speed up your vehicle correspondingly for the next push. Thus, with same expenditure of energy every time, you can push the body to as high a speed as you can reach with your vehicle. The forces exerted in this example were external to the body, but they could have been internal and generated by internal energy, by our buttumption of Newton's First Law being wrong.

Let the percentage of internal energy E converted to kinetic energy be k (k is less than 1), so kE = 0.5mvv, where m is the mbutt of the body and v the increase in speed over time t. In time T, where T = Nt, the internal energy required to speed the mbutt to the speed Nv will be EN, while the kinetic energy of the body, with reference to the initial reference (where v was 0) will be 0.5m(Nv)(Nv). Now EN = 0.5mvvN-k, so the maximum extra free energy, with reference to the initial reference, that can be obtained will be 0.5mvvN(N - 1-k). Note that N can be as high as practical design considerations will permit. Let some engineering device convert, as much of the body's kinetic energy as possible, to say electrical energy, and then use a fraction of that for its effective internal energy. The balance of the electrical energy is up for consumption.

We thus have a generator that produces power indefinitely without needing any external source. This apparently breaks the Law of Conservation of

Energy, but actually reduces it to a special case, applicable where "velocity addition" effects as described earlier do not occur. When such a generator is used to drive a vehicle using Internal Force, we have a spaceship to the stars. (And perhaps, the beginning of an explanation for the internal energy naturally emitted by the stars, and artificially from nuclear plants.) A constant acceleration of g, or nearly 10 m-sec-sec, would let reach light speed in a year, and twice light speed in 2 years. After that, it would turn around to face the earth, and then keep on "accelerating" towards the earth, effectively decelerating towards the star. So it looks like, a return trip could take 10 years, using purely Newtonian mechanics, and ignoring any possible consequences of Einstein's Special

Theory of Relativity. In any case, such a vehicle could go on land, on sea, in water, in air, as well as space. Its engine could give energy anywhere, and thus, truly open the universe to mankind.

That's all very well, a physicist would say, but what about Newton's First Law of Motion? Let us see how we can shake it, before we find ways to break it. Consider a closed box in outer space. An electrically powered robot starts accelerating from one end till it reaches around the middle of the box, then it decelerates to a stop at the other end of it. As it accelerates, it pushes the box in a direction opposite to its travel, and so the box also accelerates. When the robot decelerates, the box also decelerates, and comes to a stop. To an external observer, the box has certainly moved without any external force, and so Newton's First Law has at least been shaken. If the robot had continued to accelerate, and banged against the other side, that impact would have brought the box to a sudden stop. If it had gone straight through, the box would keep on moving, behaving like a rocket expelling mbutt.

Suppose through some engineering means, we make the robot just about to hit the rear side of the box transfer most of its kinetic energy to another

robot stationed at the rear side. The second robot thus moves with the same velocity along the box and hits the front side, thereby transferring its kinetic energy to the whole box, making it attain a higher velocity. This may look impossible, but let us not forget that unlike force, energy is a scalar quanbreasty with no sense of direction, and can change its form. In my book, "To the Stars!" I have envisioned the above approaches in detail,

using currents in electromagnets to accelerate a mbutt, and a hydraulic system to transfer the energy of the mbutt, from one to the other going in the opposite direction. Probably a simpler method, using two balanced mbuttes connected rigidly, and involving "energy reversal" with angular momentum, may be found more suitable.

I believe there is a most pressing need for experimentation in this most vital area. We should not take things for granted, by blindly following the accepted laws of physics, and conclude from such ancient theory alone, that all internal activity in a closed space must necessarily dissipate into

heat, as opposed to overall motion. It would not be too much to say, that the fate of mankind, and the health of this world, depends upon the favourable outcome of such experiments.

Arindam Banerjee Melbourne, September 2003.