When Electromagnetism and Relativity breaks

[broli]

Here's another paradox to throw into the mix. I'm curious to see what some of the firm believers of EM and relativity make of it.

[F6FLT]

What does this setup have to do with the title?

Those who do not understand how relativity explains this problem perfectly, would be well advised to study it instead of suggesting unfounded assertions. One should not believe everything that is said on pseudo-science conspiracy sites. Electromagnetism and Relativity do not break.

[broli]

Understanding how relativity and EM solves this problem seamlessly requires learning about it, rather than relying on simpler models that produce the same results. Electromagnetism and Relativity are subject to the same scrutiny as all other scientific progress. To address this issue, we need to apply special relativity, which has limitations and constraints. Even using the vector potential, we conclude that spatial variation generates an induced EMF, which is not the case. Field theory cannot address open circuits, while the Maxwell stress tensor might provide some hope for mechanical forces but involves higher-order calculus and linear algebra. In the end, we can only make statements regarding forces, not EMF, or, at the very least, they will be contradictory. We may need powerful computers to simulate all of this.

It is remarkable how a more straightforward model producing the same results as a previously complex model is not worth investigating. First principles thinking, which entails thinking like a scientist, involves questioning everything and could lead to new discoveries or unexplained phenomena like dark matter/energy instead of inventing more things on top of old ideas. True science always questions everything, including previous knowledge, and aims to converge closer to nature. However, today's academic physics community clings so tightly to these 100-year-old models, mutilating them with even more complex mathematical concepts and arbitrary inventions like "virtual particles" until they somewhat fit the data. Anyone proposing a different and testable model is ridiculed as a crackpot.

Corruption exists wherever money is involved, and money ultimately corrupts people. If your career is founded on a false assumption, then your livelihood is at risk. This adversarial attitude is sabotaging true science. Science is boundless, just as nature is boundless. It is not constructive to shun people who suggest new ideas that could promote scientific progress.

For example, recent simulation data shows that a 50-year-old theory about reverse osmosis can be entirely incorrect, even if it has provided accurate answers thus far: https://interestingengineering.com/science/reverse-osmosis-desalination-clean-water-ro-diffusion

Instead of belittling and berating new ideas, why not explore them further and advance scientific progress? Soon we will be able to use AI to deduce a model from experimental data that could provide a more accurate and general explanation of things. A few weeks ago this has been achieved already for Kepler's model:

https://scitechdaily.com/ai-descartes-a-scientific-renaissance-in-the-world-of-artificial-intelligence/

Now what if this spits out something similar to the people that have been labeled crackpots? Are we then to ignore the results in favor of "established" science?

[F6FLT]

Of course, no answer to the problem at hand, only generalities that make no sense. There is no current in an open circuit, a current exists only in a closed circuit, an apparently open circuit being closed by the displacement currents, which are only the banal coulombic influences between open parts but to be taken into account in the models.

In addition to the absence of an answer, since no equation modeling the setup in accordance with electromagnetism or relativity is presented, I see sophisms, therefore errors of reasoning, such as the fact that scientific explanations made at one time and which turned out to be false, the case of reverse osmosis, would justify that any scientific theory should be suspect. If I judge by Newtonian mechanics in its field of validity, or by relativity, we are still waiting for the facts that would challenge them, in spite of the repeated efforts of the scientists themselves to put them in default. The last major experiment was the "Gravity Probe B" experiment, and it confirmed general relativity.
Scientists try to disprove their own theories even a century after they have seen them succeed every day. On the contrary, FE researchers claim victory even when they have not succeeded at all.

The laws of nature are broadly consistent with what academic theories say.
It is amusing to note that rather than trying to be more clever in circumventing these laws or manipulating them in a way that is useful for their purpose, most FE researchers, all of whom have failed so far, have started to hate scientists, to deny scientific theories, and to imagine magical theories that are unrelated to observations but that, since they would be different from academic theories, would allow them this free energy.
These theories are never presented with measured facts that they would explain and that conventional theories would not explain. These magical theories are mostly blah, blah, blah without any rigor or math that would allow us to make quantified predictions of what we should observe. It's heartbreakingly childish.

[Grumpy]

Here's another paradox to throw into the mix. I'm curious to see what some of the firm believers of EM and relativity make of it.

what is the red rectangle?

[Hakasays]

I believe Broli is discussing one of the Faraday paradoxes, asking if a magnet that participates in Faraday induction would be 'dragged' from a current that was indirectly induced by it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8pgJYZDkGM

Possibly this one specifically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem

It's an interesting discussion but IMO the diagram and synopsis could be more clearly defined (step-by-step).

[broli]

what is the red rectangle?

Rectangular magnet with its north face facing you.

[broli]

Of course, no answer to the problem at hand, only generalities that make no sense. There is no current in an open circuit, a current exists only in a closed circuit, an apparently open circuit being closed by the displacement currents, which are only the banal coulombic influences between open parts but to be taken into account in the models.

In addition to the absence of an answer, since no equation modeling the setup in accordance with electromagnetism or relativity is presented, I see sophisms, therefore errors of reasoning, such as the fact that scientific explanations made at one time and which turned out to be false, the case of reverse osmosis, would justify that any scientific theory should be suspect. If I judge by Newtonian mechanics in its field of validity, or by relativity, we are still waiting for the facts that would challenge them, in spite of the repeated efforts of the scientists themselves to put them in default. The last major experiment was the "Gravity Probe B" experiment, and it confirmed general relativity.
Scientists try to disprove their own theories even a century after they have seen them succeed every day. On the contrary, FE researchers claim victory even when they have not succeeded at all.

The laws of nature are broadly consistent with what academic theories say.
It is amusing to note that rather than trying to be more clever in circumventing these laws or manipulating them in a way that is useful for their purpose, most FE researchers, all of whom have failed so far, have started to hate scientists, to deny scientific theories, and to imagine magical theories that are unrelated to observations but that, since they would be different from academic theories, would allow them this free energy.
These theories are never presented with measured facts that they would explain and that conventional theories would not explain. These magical theories are mostly blah, blah, blah without any rigor or math that would allow us to make quantified predictions of what we should observe. It's heartbreakingly childish.

Honestly I tend to agree with most things you say and reason about. Including that this field has been muddled by many charlatans across the many decades. So this reaction is a bit unwarranted. I'm merely highlighting that I can explain said problem with experimental verifiable data using simple Newtonian relations where forces act between particles using an N body simulation. And get in a much more computer friendly way the answer to a paradox that till this day still has physistcs debating it.

I can understand your skepticism and disdain to unhinged theory and models. Plenty have passed this "OU field". But Distinti is one of the few people out there actually following the scientific method in his work and unlike many of the past charlatans he shares them openly (on patreon) including all components and parts to replicate said experiments. Out of respect I cannot share his Patreon only material but I would encourage you to check it out. Especially the coming weeks as he's ready to setup some cool experiments with much higher accuracy then before.

It's easy to be dismissive of something as it takes the lowest amount of energy to do so. But perhaps you might find something new when you do keep your mind slightly open.

[F6FLT]

...
It's easy to be dismissive of something as it takes the lowest amount of energy to do so. But perhaps you might find something new when you do keep your mind slightly open.

I read Distinti and found his work on electromagnetism valid, even if his treatment of current elements was not revolutionary because Ampere had already been there.
I was however in a good position to read the rest of his work. It is when he started to treat gravity that he obviously went astray. I spent a lot of time reading it to come to this conclusion, so it is not a matter of disdain but of a rational rejection.

Distinti, unlike many others, is able to present equations and maintain logic in what he says. But this is not enough to make him a genius. We must not forget why we need a new theory:
- we need a new theory to explain facts that are not already explained.
- we need a new theory to explain in a more global way what other theories would explain in their own field.
- we need a new theory if it is able to predict new observations and to propose experimental methods to produce them.

Any new theory must specify in what way it predicts new facts or explains facts that are not already explained, and what are its divergences with the classical theories that can be experimentally verified in order to know who is right. In all other cases, I see no interest in a new theory, since it would not bring anything new in the facts.

So what experiment does Distinti propose that would allow us to distinguish his theory from others by different testable predictions? I don't see any, only interpretations of phenomena that are nevertheless classical and explainable without his theories.
In this field, I regularly see theorists claiming that classical theories could not explain what they show us, when it is only their lack of mastery of physics that is the cause.

Finally, I would like to add that I deplore the fact that too many talented experimenters and people capable of innovative ideas turn into followers of the least exotic theorist or the least experimentalist, both of whom brandishing their non-academic status as proof of their genius.
Following them is where I see the easy way out, and where I would apply your remark "it takes the lowest amount of energy to do so".
Whoever succeeds in making free energy will never be a follower. He will be alone because he will be the first. It is much harder!

[Hakasays]

I read Distinti and found his work on electromagnetism valid, even if his treatment of current elements was not revolutionary because Ampere had already been there.
I was however in a good position to read the rest of his work. It is when he started to treat gravity that he obviously went astray. I spent a lot of time reading it to come to this conclusion, so it is not a matter of disdain but of a rational rejection.

Distinti, unlike many others, is able to present equations and maintain logic in what he says. But this is not enough to make him a genius. We must not forget why we need a new theory:
- we need a new theory to explain facts that are not already explained.
- we need a new theory to explain in a more global way what other theories would explain in their own field.
- we need a new theory if it is able to predict new observations and to propose experimental methods to produce them.

Any new theory must specify in what way it predicts new facts or explains facts that are not already explained, and what are its divergences with the classical theories that can be experimentally verified in order to know who is right. In all other cases, I see no interest in a new theory, since it would not bring anything new in the facts.

So what experiment does Distinti propose that would allow us to distinguish his theory from others by different testable predictions? I don't see any, only interpretations of phenomena that are nevertheless classical and explainable without his theories.

I'm curious how much time you've spent on Distinti's work to conclude there are no novel solutions/predictions to be made from it?  Clearly you've studied enough to determine that it's largely compatible with existing EE formulas (albeit from a different perspective).


I'm not too well-versed in Distinti's work, but he does seem to make some unique falsifiable predictions based on it:  https://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf

[F6FLT]

@Hakasays

You need quite a few hours, but not that many when you ask the right questions: what are the facts that the new theory would explain and that the academic theories would not explain? What are the new facts that an application of the theory could allow, and how to implement them experimentally?
If these questions are not addressed in the theory itself, there is no point in going any further, it will just be blah.

You don't need to study astrology for days and days if the facts it claims are not true. For scientific or so-called scientific theories, it's the same, just check the facts before going further.

There are thousands of alternative theories. Why should we dwell on the one of gravity by Distinti instead of another one, like this one https://vixra.org/abs/2304.0084 or this one https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravity--a-neutrino-effect? Only because we would have new and verifiable facts to support it. In this the second one quoted is more interesting than the one by Distinti, because we would have these facts, see here: https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0133. Of course, we would have to verify them and it is very likely that such a considerable change in gravity by neutrinos is an artifact, otherwise it would have been seen by many others. But at least here we have something concrete.

[Hakasays]

I'm curious how much time you've spent on Distinti's work to conclude there are no novel solutions/predictions to be made from it?

You need quite a few hours, but not that many when you ask the right questions: what are the facts that the new theory would explain and that the academic theories would not explain? What are the new facts that an application of the theory could allow, and how to implement them experimentally?
If these questions are not addressed in the theory itself, there is no point in going any further, it will just be blah.

In English the phrase is to 'judge a book by its cover'. 
I know you're well-versed in mathematics, I'm sure you could 'audit' the theory quite deeply to see if any novel solutions might be made with it.    Perhaps there is a more intriguing subject that has your attention lately?


Previous post had some galactic-scale solutions by Distinti that I'm not sure have seen applied before outside of the fringe science community, though perhaps I'm mixing my theories around..

[F6FLT]

In English the phrase is to 'judge a book by its cover'. 
...

It is only your misinterpretation. In French, the language I think in, it means a rational and efficient method of analyzing a theory.
This said, you have the right to read the bible from beginning to end before finally understanding that it is not a real scientific theory. To some, it takes more time than to others. 

[Hakasays]

This said, you have the right to read the bible from beginning to end before finally understanding that it is not a real scientific theory. To some, it takes more time than to others. 

I'd read the Bible if the only book in front of me was a bible .  Because IMO the act of reading+exploring+expanding thought is more important than the exact content.


I can see why people ignore papers they don't think is useful though.
It's the same path that many fringe scientists take as well, throwing out large swaths of technical content because they don't think it will lead anywhere.  Also because there's just not enough hours in the day.
But since we are in unexplored territory it's a fair approach, because it's unclear at this point which paths/interpretations will lead to reliable success.

What direction has your work been taking you lately?  I'm curious to know what you've been studying in leiu of Distinti et al.

[F6FLT]

...
But since we are in unexplored territory it's a fair approach, because it's unclear at this point which paths/interpretations will lead to reliable success.
...

You yourself say that the path to success is "unclear", and you do nothing to clarify it?!

It is not a question of great principles but of operational method.
There are thousands of alternative theories.
Why choose, for example, Distinti, and not another one?
Did you read all the others completely to finally decide that Distinti would be more "reliable" than the others?

To be operational, you need method, and the method is to use certain analytical tricks related to rational thinking to quickly detect and eliminate the nonsense of the crackpots. If you don't use them, you'll be running around in circles like many, playing with Tesla coils all your life because you'll have believed theories about their overunity or magical properties, written by incompetent nuts.

[Hakasays]

You yourself say that the path to success is "unclear", and you do nothing to clarify it?!

It is not a question of great principles but of operational method.
There are thousands of alternative theories.
Why choose, for example, Distinti, and not another one?
Did you read all the others completely to finally decide that Distinti would be more "reliable" than the others?

I've no bias towards Distinti other than it looks experimentally and mathematically consistent and is relatively complete.  But there are a dozen fringe science models that do this.  I was more curious why you were biased against it?   You dismissed the subject seemingly without much analysis, and without suggesting any alternative paths for others to take.  It felt more like a soapbox rant than a scientific assessment.

To be operational, you need method, and the method is to use certain analytical tricks related to rational thinking to quickly detect and eliminate the nonsense of the crackpots. If you don't use them, you'll be running around in circles like many, playing with Tesla coils all your life because you'll have believed theories about their overunity or magical properties, written by incompetent nuts.

I'm actually going to be speaking about this in the July conference, because it is a very important subject and has led the herd astray many times.

If we're talking about devices (not just theories), these are some criteria I would use to help gauge credibility (will go more in-depth in the actual lecture or if you're curious)
- Principle of operation?
- Operating requirements?  Critical factors?  Timing?  Materials?
- Clear and reproducible design?
- Author uses articulate language?
- Employs Mathematical predictions/relationships?
- Consistent with other well-established formulas/principles?
- Evidence of past efforts/progress?
- Evidence of past success by other inventors?

[F6FLT]

@Hackasays

You ask questions but you don't answer mine. How do you detect a valid theory among the thousands proposed?
No answer from you. How long does it take to answer all your questions for each of the thousands of theories? Your method is impractical.

We were talking about theories, not devices. The questions are not the same even if they converge towards the necessity of facts.
Science only models the observable. If there is nothing to observe, directly or indirectly, no science is possible.
We need facts and the first thing to do is: check the facts. So you have to order your questions. It is useless to ask questions of principle if you have no facts. For the method, epistemology can help you if you want to avoid going in circles.

[broli]

@Hackasays

You ask questions but you don't answer mine. How do you detect a valid theory among the thousands proposed?
No answer from you. How long does it take to answer all your questions for each of the thousands of theories? Your method is impractical.

We were talking about theories, not devices. The questions are not the same even if they converge towards the necessity of facts.
Science only models the observable. If there is nothing to observe, directly or indirectly, no science is possible.
We need facts and the first thing to do is: check the facts. So you have to order your questions. It is useless to ask questions of principle if you have no facts. For the method, epistemology can help you if you want to avoid going in circles.

This is why your reaction bothered me. Because we're completely on the same wavelength (pun intended) when it comes to experimental data being the ONLY validation of ANY theory.

And this is the very fact I even mentioned Distinti. I have been "following" him for a while for exactly that reason. I hold no special idolization for him as a person but I respect him for his scientific approach to everything he works on, even if the persona behind it can rub some people the wrong way.  His skills as an engineer are actually quite impressive, his experimental skills are up there with the skilled in the scientific field. He proposes theory and then builds experiments very meticulously around them taking simulation data, error, noise, significant digits and unintended variables into account and compares them to classical theory to see which would give the best curve fit to reality. Who else in the "OU field" is doing that at this level?

And to talk briefly about my personal interest into him I was dabbling with a very similar experiment he performed a while ago but performed it with a much higher refinement than I ever could do. In fact right now he's redesigning that very experiment to eliminate a potential source of error that I pointed out to him. To me that shows true interest in finding the truth and not something that fits your skewed bias.

I feel like you have looked into him at some point briefly and gave him a label and moved on. Lets compare him to his "peers". Take Ken Wheeler for example, a guy who has an entire YouTube show around his phantastical either theory with absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. He has these hour long monologues about the "modalities of the aehter", no theory, no data, not even a damned computer simulation, absolutely nothing.

Distinti has gone the wrong path quite a few times before but he did what every true scientists does, go back and see what assumptions were wrong and adjust. This might not show from his 2001-ish goofy looking website that has had the same design and being "under construction" forever. He has been active on Patreon for a while as I mentioned. I can't link to his payed stuff out of respect but I added some screenshots to show you how meticulous he is about experimental verification.

So as @Hackasays said I believe you are heavily judging a book by its cover here and frankly if all I had was that for context I would come to the same conclusion for him being the n-th crackpot in a field muddled by unhinged crackpots. I dislike the character assassination aspect that often takes place in the science community when the person doesn't fit the bill. Did you know Isaac Newton was heavily into Alchemy, yes the cooky science that thought you could transmute lead into gold, but yet is regarded as the most important figure to science today. In fact I don't agree with some personal opinions he has but that does not discredit good scientific work that no one else is doing.

To me when you already get the same numerical results to nature's constants and matters properties such as mass, charge and so on from a completely different foundation then how does that not warrant attention? This is why I happily support his work with my little financial contribution as we have too few people like him in this crazy field.

And I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just giving you the correct data before you form your conclusion about him, isn't that the scientific way . And I wouldn't put half as much effort into replying so extensively if I didn't also respect your views and logical reasoning skills.

[Hakasays]

You ask questions but you don't answer mine. How do you detect a valid theory among the thousands proposed?

I didn't want to go into too much detail because it was deviating from the topic-of-discussion.  I figured you would deduce yourself what would quantify a 'suitable theory' based on the synopsis I made for qualifying a device.  I infer you largely agree what I've stated thus-far.

For theories, in a broad sense I would ask:
- Does the theory largely fit existing observations and/or common formulas?  (If not, then the theory does not match with observed reality)
- Does the theory present engineerable solutions?  (If not there's on way to build something from it)
- Does the theory derive values that are arbitrary constants in the existing model?  If so, then it can be considered more 'complete' than Standard Model.
- Does the theory span multiple disciplines that have not yet been unified?  If so, the theory can also be considered more 'complete' than existing models.
- Is the theory simple enough to be understood?  A massive book of Quaternions like Maxwell's might be correct and complete, but so few people could follow that it only became useful when it was translated to basic algebraic relationships by Heaviside.

Now that I've articulated my answer in more detail, I'll repeat my previous question:

I've no bias towards Distinti other than it looks experimentally and mathematically consistent and is relatively complete.  But there are a dozen fringe science models that do this.  I was more curious why you were biased against it?   You dismissed the subject seemingly without much analysis, and without suggesting any alternative paths for others to take.  It felt more like a soapbox rant than a scientific assessment.