A Fundamental Contradiction at the Roots of Physics

The slogan “Trust the Science!” has been hammered into people’s minds a lot lately, mainly in connection with the Covid and jabs. The propaganda implies that we must trust the mainstream narrative blindly like a religion, because the mainstream science is settled by now and what they know must be correct. Outsiders (uncontrollable independent scientists not bound by any organizations, or laypeople) are forbidden to do science, even more to question the established scientific dogmas.

However, the very essence of real Science is to seek correct knowledge by questioning existing knowledge and theories that contradict reality. This demands us not to trust the mainstream narrative blindly, but to seek the truth and judge the found facts independently using our own common sense and healthy logic. Today knowledge of any level in almost any subject can be acquired even by laypeople if they are willing to invest time and study, there are plenty of free online university lecture videos and other study material. The main reason for this ongoing conflict between real Science and official or mainstream ‘science’ is money. The control system of financial interests, big corporations, banking interests, political agendas finance the scientific institutions, corrupt mainstream science and fabricate fake research results.

The official science has been falsified not only in the realm of medicine and pharmacology, but also in hard sciences like Physics, the LENR community knows this very well. The paper below presents one such case, a fatal contradiction at the very roots of Physics, in Electrostatics. The basic laws and equations of mainstream Physics contradict each other like in the mathematical contradiction of: “if A=1 and B=1 then A+B=3”. This study does not offer any new measurement or theory that would challenge the old dogmas (that could be disputed), but simply performs calculations using mainstream science and proves that the official science contradicts itself, no new theory is necessary to realize that. This inconsistency has been discovered and published on my old website already in 2003, and in a more comprehensive paper in 2018, however, in mainstream scientific circles it has been swept under the rug. Here is the paper:

Inconsistencies in EM Theory - the Kelvin Polarization Force Density Contradiction

Abstract: Calculations of resultant electrostatic force on a charged spherical or cylindrical capacitor with two sectors of different dielectrics, based on the classical formulas of electrostatic pressure, Kelvin polarization force density, and Maxwell stress tensor predict a reactionless force that violates Newton’s 3rd law. Measurements didn’t confirm the existence of such a reactionless thrust, thus there is an apparent inconsistency in the classical EM theory that leads to wrong results.

https://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0468v2.pdf

https://vixra.org/abs/1810.0468

DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20231109.v1

It was also recently published in Hadronic Journal Volume 45, Number 2, June 2022, pages 133-206 doi.org/10.29083/HJ.45.02.2022 password for opening the pdf directly on hadronicpress.com (shared with permission of Publisher): HJ2022-45-2

Zoltan Losonc

The feeling and hope that a major breakthrough is just around the corner was hanging in the air for decades now, but it still didn't happen.

The reason we feel optimistic is that there are people who are sincerely working on it, and because of the internet, where we are able to access and share cutting edge research results and information.

The reason why the expected reform did not happen yet is the power of an unlimited money supply that feeds the beast, and controls mainstream science.

Here are a few possible ways how I think some viable and economical alternative energy solutions could get into mass production and reach the public:

1) If the fiat money system would collapse and no bank would have the authority to create money from thin air anymore. A new money backed by commodities (like gold and silver) would need to be introduced, and kept alive as if it were the life blood of our existence. Although there are good efforts in this direction (see BRICS initiatives) I doubt, that it will be maintained for many decades or centuries. The temptation is too strong for all power structures in all countries to rip off the masses via inflation, which of course requires an unbacked fiat money system.

2) An alternative system of real Science would be built up from scratch, financed by companies and grassroots people who oppose the current corrupt academy. In this case truth supposed to trump financial interests. The 'University of Austin' seems to be pioneering this effort. But again, even this road can lead to success only if the Cabal lose their power of money creation, and suppression via bribes, threats, intimidation and assassinations.

3) If the western powers really get cornered by Russian gas and oil export limitations, and will need new economical energy sources so badly, that they will even allow breakthrough solutions like LENR and Thorium reactors to compete with their current energy monopolies. Some more 'occult' discoveries and inventions will also emerge, once the obstacles get removed.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Really? It resembles Tajmar works and EMDrive experiments with dielectric inserts for me.

Quote

Really?

The key sentence form the abstract is:

"Measurements didn’t confirm the existence of such a reactionless thrust."

The papers you referred to are interesting, but none of them belong to the very simple realm of Electrostatics, therefore the claim of similarity is a bit of stretch.

Also, I have seen reports lately that the new and more accurate measurements of EM drive prove that it does not produce any measurable thrust. Allegedly the previous positive reports that claimed measurable thrust were due to measurement errors. I think Tajmar also did some EM drive replications that could not measure any useful force.

Whether the EM drive really works or not, I can't know with certainty without performing my own measurements. But, I am not really interested in it anyway, because the promised thrust is insignificant, especially when we compare it to the power spent, weight and size of the device, the price tag and high-tech requirements. It is simply not worth it. There are much more promising projects to work on.

Quote from Andras

In an other thread, in the Physics section of the portal, I informed about the publication of our book, titled "Unified Field Theory and Occam's Razor". Our aim is correct many of these fundamental contradictions.

It is clear that LENR experiments signal many problems with nuclear particle theories.

Related to your example: if we take a cylindrical capacitor, charge it, and place magnets along its axis (so that it is in an axial magnetic field), then this static configuration will have a circulating Poynting vector. This setup has puzzled physicists in the early 20th century, and it was debated whether there is any circulating energy flow within this static configuration. Today, this curious setup is not talked about any more.

We bring up and analyze this issue in our book.

Display More

I appreciate all efforts to improve physics and science in general, but new theories supposed to be well grounded in practicality. Most of them (like the string theory) are a lot more speculative than practically useful. I hope yours is different in this respect.

Since you proposed a new Unified Field Theory, I assume that it should be able to offer a valid solution to the contradiction revealed in my paper.

If it does, then please elaborate exactly what is your solution. I would expect a macroscopic treatment of the subject that is used in common Electrostatics Engineering, not some abstract and obscure quantum theoretical deliberations or getting lost in particle physics. We simply calculate forces using equations valid in the field of Electrostatics.

If your new theory can’t offer a valid solution to the inconsistency, then you might need to work on it some more until it does.

Quote from Cydonia

I like string theory good or bad. How do you judge to define a good or bad theory.. Good or bad this of Wyttenbach is also speculative..no ?

OK, no problem, if you like string theory then enjoy it. But don’t expect others to share your enthusiasm, especially not form me.

The criteria of a theory being good is that first of all it must be practically useful, it must offer both qualitative (how and why it works the way it does) and quantitative analysis, equations that accurately describe the laws of Nature, and enable us to predict the behavior of systems under specific conditions. If it remains only a qualitative theory (or even worse, pure speculation that contradicts observable phenomena) that can’t offer accurate quantitative analysis for practical purposes, then it is useless (at least from practical and engineering point of view).

Second, it must be logical and self-consistent without internal contradictions, at least within one branch of Physics, but preferably encompassing all physics. In this case I would be happy with a new theory of Electromagnetism that is self-consistent within the macroscopic realm and in harmony with all observable laws of Mechanics as well.

Regarding string theory, I did not mention it because I consider it deserving our time and attention, but as a negative example that I don’t intend to discuss, because it is really useless. If you would like to discuss it, please do it in another thread and I promise that I will not participate. It is so bad that it is not even wrong! You think I’m joking? No, here it is:

Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong

Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong

Physicist, mathematician and blogger Peter Woit whacks strings, multiverses, simulated universes and “fake physics”

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

www.amazon.com

Reviews and Press Coverage for Not Even Wrong

http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/NEWreviews.html

But if all this literature is still not enough to make you realize the obvious, then search on YouTube for “string theory is wrong” or “string theory is nonsense” etc. and you will find plenty of videos to enjoy. And if that is still not enough then you can dig some more using Google and other search engines, it is an excellent way of wasting time.

This little caricature borrowed from Voit’s blog, summarizes the subject perfectly

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Sawyer claims the dimensions of the Dresden device were not tuned properly and would never work, and he had warned them of that. I am paraphrasing from memory. He also has a paper handwaving around claiming it does not break conservation of energy because it requires a load to impart a force. I don't think he describes this in enough detail for me to understand if it is bunk or not. Here are some of his latest posts. I am skeptical but if there is any reactionless force at all, it is a gamechanger for interstellar travel.

http://www.emdrive.com/

Thanks for the link, it certainly tickles the “interesting button”, and I hope the researchers involved will pursue the subject honestly, without a hidden agenda to force something that does not really work, or disprove something that actually works. There is a good reason for concern in this regard, because of the big money interests financing such projects and the prestige or pride involved. But the truth will triumph sooner or later, it is just matter of time.

If the driving force behind pushing the EM Drive research (despite the hardly measurable thrust) is the hope that it could lead to some modified solutions that will generate useful thrust, then that is a valid argument. But, this approach does not target any specific objective that needs to be achieved ASAP, and therefore has got a faint chance to yield useful results in near term.

Here is how I would approach the subject of space propulsion:

- One of the objectives could be to develop thrusters for satellites in earth orbit that would not need any fuel, or replenishment of propellant material, so that they could push the satellites back into higher orbits after they fall to critical altitudes due to atmospheric friction.

In this case there are two problems to solve, one is the continuous supply of sufficient energy, and the other is the supply of propellant mass. Although some solar energy can be acquired via solar panels, that is not quite sufficient for both electronics and thruster. I would rather focus on using atomic energy (how about Thorium?), because that can offer a substantial power for a long time. There are good efforts in this direction already.

Propellant mass could be collected by a large funnel turned in the direction of movement, and some new tech that could collect the very thin air gases and space dust that is slowing down the satellite. If there is enough energy, there is hope for this to work (perhaps using high voltage electrodes to create plasma and trap the ions?).

Once you have enough energy and propellant mass, it is possible to develop efficient ionic drives that would use atomic energy. This way the life span of satellites could be increased substantially without the need to send up rocket fuel. If the orbit is relatively low, where friction is significant, there could be sufficient gas to collect. In higher orbits where there is not enough gas, the friction would be so low that there would be no need to modify the orbit often either.

- If the objective is real space travel carrying humans, possibly even leaving the Solar system, that is a whole different ballgame. The main issue would be how to survive the countless micro meteorite ‘bullet’ impacts (see the case of James Webb Space Telescope) and the fatal cosmic radiation. The propulsion would be only a secondary problem.

This problem of physical damage can not be solved with our current technology. The only way to overcome this obstacle is to use aether technology to create a separate isolated aether bubble around the craft that could repel and penetrate any matter, divert the deadly cosmic radiation, and create an independent inertial system so that the passenger would not feel the acceleration of the craft. Without such technology there is absolutely no chance for humans to travel in space for large distances for long time and survive. Spending some time in near Earth orbit under the protection of geomagnetic field is not comparable to long distance travel in unprotected space.

I am sure there are people who will jeer at this idea, based on their ‘knowledge’ that the aether doesn’t exist, but there were also many ‘scientists’ who ridiculed the Wright brothers, because they ‘knew’ that heavier than air objects can’t possibly fly… right? This much about their opinion, which is quite often direct disinformation with an objective to suppress the subject.

In summary, unless the concept of aether is resurrected in Physics and serious resources are dedicated to researching its properties and the laws governing it, there is no chance for humans to develop real space travel deserving the name. The concept of aether was deliberately exorcised from Physics for a very good reason, to prevent the discovery of free energy sources, antigravity, and real space crafts, because that would empower humanity too much, and enable us to visit other planers, God forbid even other star systems where we are not welcome. Instead of turning the radio telescopes towards the sky looking for aliens, people should just not close their eyes when they see UFOs, and not ignore the testimony of those who report such encounters.

Quote from Alan Smith

You might like the work of Mike McCulloch, an acquaintance of mine on 'Quantised Inertia' He has a $2M grant from Darpa to study emdrives, based on his aether-related theories about the importance of Unruh Radiation.

https://iopscience.iop.org/art….1209/0295-5075/118/34003

Thanks Alan, I will check it out and see what he wrote about his aether concepts. Although, when I see DARPA, I tend to run in the opposite direction. No money is worth selling one's soul to the (d)evil...

Also, as mentioned earlier, my interest in the EM Drive is minimal, only on the level of 'interesting news'. My main scientific interest is in the research of alternative energy sources, anomalies in electromagnetism and acoustics.

We need to eliminate the inconsistencies and make the equations work properly to provide accurate results, without contradictions.

My other interest is in spiritual philosophy, which is actually the science of consciousness (not psychology). It is infinitely more important than our earthly science of physical matter, because the body that can use Physics dies in a few decades, but the consciousness is immortal.

Quote from gerold.s

Hello Zoltan,

Maybe you are aware of this paper published by Wyttenbach on LF

a short while ago?

Thanks Gerold, I will take a look. I was not aware of the document, I have recently joined this forum.

Quote from bayak

The ether theory is good as a concept, but poorly executed, it does not reproduce even Maxwell's theory. Consequently, the old theory of the ether must be replaced by a new theory of a moving medium. In this regard, I have a book for you about minimal flows on a seven-dimensional sphere.

Thank you Bayak, mathematics is certainly a valuable tool in Physics and engineering, as long as it remains only a tool, and not an aim in itself.

The theory of Physics supposed to be built up based on observations and measurements, and the math used only where it is necessary and useful. Doing things the other way around, starting out in pure mathematics and trying to build a mathematical theory that is pleasing to the mind, and then trying to force the laws of nature to fit our mathematical beauty is doomed to fail. Nature is the boss and if we want to figure out her secrets, we must watch and listen, instead of trying to reinvent an artificial theoretical mathematical nature ourselves.

To be honest, a seven dimensional something doesn't make any sense to me. Based on my understanding there are only 3 spatial dimensions and one time. My concepts of any dimensions beyond these 4 are based on the ancient Vedic knowledge that would certainly not fit into your concepts. Therefore, I will have a problem with digesting your more than 4 dimensions. But, I do appreciate your work, it might lead to something wonderful.