# A Fundamental Contradiction at the Roots of Physics

• Wouldn't the capacitor made by two parallel plates with two different dielectrics have the same contradiction? If not, why not? I think you owe us an explanation. You come in with a topic that has nothing to do with the purposes of this forum with generalities. Personally I think there is no contradiction, and a third year E E student could show why.

• You still don't get it. The magnets and capacitor are unconnected independent sources. Each creates its own static field, which aren't time varying anyway. No derivatives with respect to time. No propagating waves. No energy flow. No Poynting vector. I am disappointed in you.

You only get a non zero Poynting vector for time varying electric and magnetic fields that have the same source and obey Maxwell's Equations.

I thought when you said ‘same source’ you were talking about a shared voltage source, ie an electrical circuit. Having now read Zoltan’s paper, your comment makes more sense.

And no… Engineers who still believe in Rossi don’t get to be disappointed in anyone. My working assumption is they have lost their marbles. Although in the above case, it appears this assumption was wrongly applied.

• 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.

Nature is not just amenable to mathematical description, but can also be the subject of mathematical modeling. It's just that some models suit her, and others don't. And then, in vain you immediately reject additional dimensions, because a good model will hide them, just make them invisible.

• While discussing dimenionality ( and the problem of extra ones) with a very very smart mathematician friend he said to me "It takes practice, on most days I can think in four dimensions, but on a good day I can just about get a glimpse of five.".

So it can be done.

• While discussing dimenionality ( and the problem of extra ones)

Extra dimensions are like extra pronouns. There might only be only three or four (ex. he, she, it; x, y z). Any more are purely theoretical and can't be proven. But similarly, you can "feel" like x is y or z, in your own reference frame, and this can be redefined for every day/calculation.

• A simplified idea of additional dimensions can be obtained by the example of an observer representing a grain of sand on the torus, which moves along the trajectory described by the irrational winding of the torus. For such an observer, his entire dimension space fits in one dimension, and an additional dimension is hidden.

• A simplified idea of additional dimensions can be obtained by the example of an observer representing a grain of sand on the torus, which moves along the trajectory described by the irrational winding of the torus. For such an observer, his entire dimension space fits in one dimension, and an additional dimension is hidden.

I don't get this analogy. The "grain of sand" can see all three dimensions and in fact feel centrifical accelerations in all three dimensions.

• I don't get this analogy. The "grain of sand" can see all three dimensions and in fact feel centrifical accelerations in all three dimensions.

Sorry, I forgot to add that strong winds blow on the surface of the torus (vacuum flows sliding along the irrational winding of the torus), which greatly restrict the freedom of our unfortunate grain of sand.

• Extradimensions are all around us, actually the problem in realizing it is, our Universe is more dimensional than theorists suggest. One clue is the existence of short distance forces (Casimir, dipole and nuclear forces), which don't follow inverse square law. Magnetism is also hyperdimensional force as it's distance/strenght dependence doesn't follow inverse square law. The effects like polarization and refraction of light are also hyperdimensional: one can not have them in strictly 3D propagation of light wave.

When number of dimensions of hyperspheres increases, it's surface/volume ratio raises as well. From our low-dimensional perspective such a high-dimensional N-sphere would look like hedgehog with its spines rendered as 3D spheres within our 4D space-time:

Apparently this is how every material object looks like: like array of atoms and molecules held together at distance with invisible forces.

• For those who like to wonder about dimensionality, I recommend this movie about a 2D universe.

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

• Fully coexistence of different dimensions fills our universe and as you said well explains a lot of things as light but also at higher scale the controversial black matter. I don’t know if it exists a relation between scale of things and number of dimensions. So all of this sticks well with string theory. Again probably neutrinos and single quantas are the same objets apart a gap in nb of dimensions .

• This thread has been completely derailed, and I am partially guilty for responding to off-topic posts. It is time to either straighten out the flow of discussion or simply close the thread (at least from my point of view).

There is only one person here who actually wanted to talk about what is written in the paper, and unfortunately he is an obvious shill. I am not saying that there is only one shill in this forum, just that he has got this written on his forehead with huge capital letters, you can’t possibly miss it, he is a school example of a disinfo agent.

I don’t waste my time on discussions with obvious shills, because that is a time waster game and it would not lead to anything positive. Dragging the flow of discussion into barren off-topic chat achieves a similar result. I am an old bone and spent a lot of time fighting the windmill of disinfo agents on several forums and other online platforms. My shill detector is quite refined and the needle is bending when reading the post of the mentioned shill, but I will let the readers discover who that might be, and exactly why. For the younger readers with less experience in this subject here is a primer:

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

So, if anyone who does not behave like an obvious shill has any questions or comments about the paper of the OP, I will be here for a little longer to respond. But I am done with discussing off-topic stuff in this thread. In case I would not post in this thread anymore, those who are sincerely interested in discussing subjects I am working on know how to contact me, my address in in the paper.

• Z_Losonc This is a moderated form, and we don't tolerate abuse but favour kindness and allowing different opinions and viewpoints. If you see something you consider to be abusive then let the moderators know by clicking on the little hammer sign of the post that you have problems with and the mods will review it and act as they see fit.

• There is only one person here who actually wanted to talk about what is written in the paper, and unfortunately he is an obvious shill.

I am interested in this thread and I am not sure who you are calling the "obvious shill". Just because you started the thread doesn't mean you control all its content. I believe most posts here are on topic as I perceive it. How can you not talk about EM Drive when you talk about acceleration in capacitors with dual dialectric materials? I also like the discussion of extra dimensions as I believe that is a big problem with string theory being BS. If you want only discussion of your paper, talk to Research Gate. Perhaps Rossi can be a peer reviewer.

• I think there are important examples of mainstream physics being wrong, but Z_Losanc's example of the capacitor does not seem a strong one to me. His example is more of an engineering problem, how electrodynamics is applied to a physical device where all ideal assumptions are thrown out the window.

A more fundamental hack/kludge that is obviously wrong involves neutrinos, which have been proven to have mass, yet have never been measured with speeds distinguishable from the speed of light. This is why I find Martineau's Photodynamics paper interesting.

• Quote

I don’t waste my time on discussions with obvious shills, because that is a time waster game and it would not lead to anything positive.

I'd also ask You for more patience as the out of box thinking people behave like diverging particles of dark matter and they're repelled not only by mainstream - but also each other.

I've question for you, why do You expect that concentric capacitor in solely symmetric arrangement should exhibit some thrust - and if yes, in which direction?

My point is, that charged capacitor really exhibits trust and it was demonstrated with multiple experiments (Biefeld-Brown, Stoyan Sarge, NASA's NSSTC LEEIF facility Tajmar) providing its arrangement is not be made symmetric.

• I also like the discussion of extra dimensions as I believe that is a big problem with string theory being BS

By the way, have you taken into account the argument with a vacuum flow reducing extra dimensions of space?

It could be added to this that doubling the Euclidean space to a 6-dimensional space with a neutral metric generates a group of strong interaction symmetries (through the Lie algebra of vacuum vector fields), and the vacuum flow reduces the 6-dimensional space to the 3-dimensional Euclidean space which we are observing.

Edited 2 times, last by bayak ().

• I'd also ask You for more patience as the out of box thinking people behave like diverging particles of dark matter and they're repelled not only by mainstream - but also each other.

Agree, I thought he had a good thread going. Should keep in mind the 1st part of the LENR Forum motto: "Check your ego at the door".

• I'd also ask You for more patience as the out of box thinking people behave like diverging particles of dark matter and they're repelled not only by mainstream - but also each other.

I've question for you, why do You expect that concentric capacitor in solely symmetric arrangement should exhibit some thrust - and if yes, in which direction?

My point is, that charged capacitor really exhibits trust and it was demonstrated with multiple experiments (Biefeld-Brown, Stoyan Sarge, NASA's NSSTC LEEIF facility Tajmar) providing its arrangement is not be made symmetric.

About 25 years ago I recall there was a bunch of capacitor thrust enthusiasts working away with cylinders of frightening capacity.