As if one wasn’t enough: can PNN break another fundamental law?


An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

– Newton’s First law

This law describes the behavior of any object when it is acted upon by a force. Let’s take for example a rocket that is moving in space after it has fired its thruster: its speed and direction will remain constant, until a force, for example another thruster firing or a gravitational field, won’t intervene to modify its motion. Everything obey to this law: vehicles, living beings, planets and so on.

By creating laws man defined the basis for cohabitation and thus for society. If everyone stopped to obey, human society would collapse in short time. In the same way scientific world needs laws that define the ground for all its work. If even one law was broken, the consequences would shake its foundations. Two broken laws would mean an historic change of enormous reach, enough to call into question physics itself. From older articles we know that PNN has potentiality to throw scientific community into confusion, as it violates the third principle of dynamics. If it turned out to be capable of violating first principle too, PNN wouldn’t be the “Holy Grail” of physics anymore but rather its atomic bomb.. But how this could be even possible? No machine can stand against the laws that made it work: it would be a paradox! In fact the only plausible explanation is that PNN obeys to different laws! If PNN will keep its promises, it will be the “living” demonstration of physics greatest blunder in its history!

Let’s have a look to the origins of this blunder: when Newton formulated his laws, in XVII century, almost nothing was known about those phenomenon hidden to naked eye, like E.M fields let’s say. Still, when electrodynamics was founded two centuries later, everyone took for granted that electric charges  would obey to laws of dynamics, and this is still true today! To make a similarity it’s like pretending to use XIX century traffic laws to regulate XXI century air traffic: some of them might still be applied but surely there are things that they couldn’t know, like the aircraft capability to move in three dimensions!  If we transfer this similarity in electrodynamics, we can say that Newton laws are too outdated to completely describe the behavior of E.M field. ASPS “simply” discovered their inadequacy in said field.

Let’s see, with the aid of these simple figures where A and B are two conductive plates, the loophole that allows PNN to violate Newton’s third:


Figure 1a: A is positively charged (red) while B is not charged. This means that B is immersed in A electric field (red)


Figure 1b: when B is filled with negative charges (blue), they immediately endure A influence and become attracted toward A. However B electric field(blue) has not reached A charges yet: in this very moment, an action force Fa is existing but the reaction force induced in A charges by B electric field not yet.


Figure 1c: the charges in A are removed but B is still immersed in rapidly fading A electric field, so Fa is still present.  At this point, there are no free charges in A where B electric field could generate an hypothetical Fb reaction force! 

That’s it, the easiest explanation about how to violate the Third Law! The trick is to make this mechanism cyclical: it “just” requires an alternating current with a very fine tuned charge-discharge cycle to generate effective propulsion! However, please keep in mind that this is an extreme simplification of the principle: Calmagorod page [1] doesn’t say anything about removing A charge, so it’s more likely that plate A in Figure 1c isn’t completely discharged but rather it contains less charge in comparison to B, thus a reaction force Fb is generated but smaller than Fa, so net thrust remains directed toward A (something similar to EmDrive, after all). [Important: please read the note * at the end of the page]

Now, about Newton’s first violation..  The most astonishing thing is that the law is broken “for free”, just because third is broken! In fact, ASPS discovered this violation while testing PNN, not by voluntarily trying to break it. This pushed the Association to research for a theoretical explanation and it finally discovered that, in order to correctly calculate PNN acceleration, some variables must be added to inertia formula. ASPS itself states that the following considerations are just theory, so an experimental validation is mandatory.

Let’s start with the explanation:

In a Newtonian system the lack of external forces leads to inertia law, so the square derivative of space s(t) in respect of time becomes null.

Thus from md²s(t)/dt² = 0 we obtain that s(t) = s0 + v0t , where s0 and v0 are respectively movement and initial speed at time t=0.

The inertia law states that when the resultant of external forces is null the motion is linear and uniform. This is valid for PNN too where, however, the external forces are not the only ones existing. If such forces weight zero, internal forces weight more than zero, so they must be taken into account for the definition of inertia law. Internal to PNN mobile, in its reference frame, there is an internal force that acts upon total mass m and determines an acceleration ma that is not null:

ma = md²s(t)/dt² =/= 0

Using fixed stars as reference frame, we can consider this internal acceleration as an acceleration variation da/dt (obviously temporal variations of orders greater than one are possible).

Because we’re considering the same force but in two different reference frames, internal force must equal the external force, except for a constant k.

This means ma = k mda/dt

That leads to differential equation

    md²s(t)/dt² = k md³s(t)/dt³

Which can be solved using exponential function:

s(t)=s0 + v0t + a0k²exp(t/k)


These are Laureti’s final considerations[2]:

Even if I’ve got some suspects I don’t know what k actually means at an experimental level, as I don’t know if masses in equation 1) don’t depend from reference frame, as well as temporal variables. What it can be deduced for now is that if 2) was true we could cross the universe in short time!

For how this new law of inertia is configured, it could work around relativistic mechanics as speed increments occur at constant energy.

Whit these premises, PNN inertia law make a PNN engine look more like a stargate than a thruster.. for this reason I’ll call k the gate constant.

Going back to equation 2), when the prototype is on the ballistic pendulum, in balance condition with gravitational field, a0 is nullified by the component of the force relative to gravitational field so the exponential term in 2) is nullified.

I’ve always doubted about intrinsic capabilities of mathematic to return anything more than it had inside from the beginning so my only conclusion is that we should send a PNN prototype (integrated with energy source, amplifiers and command and control apparatus) in geostationary orbit and then make the prototype travel through it, always with acceleration and deceleration tangential to Earth orbit, on a fixed distance, in order to verify if on that course is valid:

s(t)=s0 + v0t + .5a0

The response is up to experiments.

If, by chance, the presence of an exponential term inside the inertia law was true, the speculations in this article would became true as well.

The new inertia law leads to revolutionary conclusions for relativistic Newtonian status quo:

  • Light speed can be exceeded
  • Mass decreases when speed increases (the exact opposite of relativity!)

PNN would look like a stargate because with k=1sec and a0=1m/sec²:

  • A light year is covered in less than 30 seconds!
  • Proxima Centauri (4,24 ly) is reached in less than 32 seconds
  • Andromeda galaxy (1.000.000 ly) is reached in about 44 seconds!

If these speculations were confirmed by practical experimentation, our limitation to the knowledge of the universe would be no longer due to vast distances but rather to the number of place we could visit.. For the moment however the right thing to do is to lie low and wait for experimental confirmation from orbit tests: only experiments can give a final answer about all physics variants involved in 2)

It is important to remark that in 2) we can start with very little movements and speeds because as time passes, the exponential term rises in an imposing way.

To conclude, the PNN inertia law allows constantly increasing speeds with total applied energy at constant value.

Exponential inertia law for interstellar flight is more important and determining that the amount of thrust that a PNN can produce.

[1] Violation of Newton’s third at Calmagorod (in Italian)

[2] Violation of Newton’s first at Calmagorod (in Italian)

* 11/19/2016: sorry for this late update but I forgot to do it. According to Laureti’s clarification in this article the principle is deliberately wrong:

[..] If one day the official physics will recognize that the displacement current and its magnetic field does not exist I’ll say that what is described at PNN CAPACITORS THRUSTER) IS WRONG.

If they won’t recognize its nonexistence, should read that Maxwell’s equations must be rewritten, I’ll always say that what is in the site is the PNN thrust procedure.

Since Calmagorod is online no orthodox physicist told me that the above description is wrong, because if they did they should say that Maxwell’s equations are wrong!

9 thoughts on “As if one wasn’t enough: can PNN break another fundamental law?

    1. Hi Damian,
      yes indeed, thank you for the links!
      It’s an interesting variation for exploiting Lorentz force. If they use a spinning disc to generate thrust however I think they’ll need a very powerful motor to spin it fast enough to get reasonable amounts of thrust, let alone for flying a drone.
      I just gave it a quick glance but the idea is worth to be deepened.


      1. Sooner or later the disc bearings will wear out. actual PNN has no moving parts…


  1. Any force field acts instantaneously just like an action and reaction which are the elements of very definition of force by Newton… But you claim to have discovered a force that acts from nothing and reacts on something…


      1. Unfortunately dipole is a high Q resonator and will respond with ringing if input waveform contains rectangular components and thus inventors predictions are in error and also Lorentz force is Newtonian…


      2. According to Laureti, one must keep into account the phase shift between dipoles and the Lorentz force with the phase shifts by non-newtonian resultant.


Welcome visitor, please share your thoughts. English is better but Italian is accepted. If you want to learn more about ASPS please have a look at the blog menu

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s