Mordred

See the directions of force on that link due to Lorentz force and think about number 2. Hint the part about the field no longer affecting A.

Part one is correct part two is incorrect. Part two is incorrect. Here is Lorentz force on two wires Notice the direction of force on the two wires. Reverse one polarity and notice the direction. Both are either pointing toward each other or both away from each other. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/wirfor.html See image here You applied the Lorentz force equations. So this applies however your two wires are attached to the same structure. An electric motor follows the right hand rule in an orientation between the magnet and current to induce spin. Use the RH rule for that orientation. Go ahead try 10 amps on one wire with zero amps on the other you will still attract outward on the two wires or inward. Here is a quote from that page... "Once you have calculated the force on wire 2, of course the force on wire 1 must be exactly the same magnitude and in the opposite direction according to Newton's third law."

Doesn't matter what you think. I know these laws apply in the scenario described. So does everyone else involved in this thread. The denial by attrition tactic doesn't change that You can check any textbook in fact I recommend you do. It's high school physics. The third law is clear. "For any force there is an equal and opposite force." Every physics text book will state this. You did not apply this law

I have stressed this ever since

I also stated opposing forces being involved then stated them. If you read back and look at the full post I included the question are your wires fix mounted.

If you applied your EMP against Earth's magnetic field or against ionized plasma then I would state it's workable. However you are not

I referenced your calculations and pointed out the error in them. That is sufficient to overturn your design. Everyone involved has been telling you the same thing. You must apply a force against something not part of your craft. PERIOD. Doesn't make a difference how you try to counter force.

You have provided a lack of understanding and application of Newton's laws

They are fixed mounted they cannot seperate. Doesn't matter how you apply your counter forces. You have two fixed wires you cannot seperate or ignore the action of the four forces acting upon two fixed mount wires. They all occur simultaneously. No matter what you attempt or believe You must act upon something that can seperate from the craft.... Period

Grrr this is ridiculous [latex] \underbrace{\longleftarrow}_{x Newton's}\overbrace{||}^{wire A}\underbrace{\longrightarrow}_{X Newton's}[/latex] [latex]\leftarrow x= \rightarrow x[/latex] Anything you don't follow about Newton's third law applied to wire A ? Wire B will be pulled to the left by the mounting system the same quantity as wire A pushes against wire B. Four force vectors involved

Of course they do I already explained wire A acts upon itself when it emits the EM field. You did not apply Newton's third law to wire A

Tell you what prove me wrong Find one craft of any kind that has movement that doesn't apply some form of force outside of that craft. This includes outside forces acting upon said craft

No I haven't you applied a calculation of wire A acting upon wire B. Then claimed that it was sufficient. It's not You did not apply all the applicable force vectors in that scenario. Plain and simple. Incomplete calculations is identical to incorrect calculations

Lol can an astronaut bang the side of a ship while onboard and generate thrust ? That would be an equivalent scenario a wire A acting on Wire B when both are part of the ship

Agreed NOPE to that quoted section.

Does that somehow make your theory workable as if by magic ? The three laws of inertia are so well tested and it states what your doing isn't feasible. Denial doesn't change that

Day Correct it must be excess directional force acting upon the exterior of the ship. Especially pulsed EMP.

The laser would also push against its emitter. If it pushes against a shield then you can generate a positive pressure zone that can enable small movement as high pressure wants to equalize with low pressure

One can calculate the impractical it prior to spending and wasting money. Here is a simple analogy take a C clamp. Call the shafts mount wire a and the opposing side wire B. What directions are the force vectors on both the ends ? Wire A pulses against wire B as a result equal force in the opposite direction is applied to wire A. Wire B is fixed mounted cannot move by that mount. Equals no movement of either wire sum of force is zero zip nadda As your two wires are fixed mounted it would be no different than taking a ram onto a spaceship. The ram hammers one way but equal force is applied the opposite direction. The only way for EMP to move a ship is if the EMP acts upon something outside of the ship. In space the density of ionized particles is too insignificant for practicality.

It hasn't been tried before because others realize it won't work. If delivering propulsion was as easy as EMP pulsing don't you think it would already be in practical use ? Consider how much we use electrical circuits in our day and age with electrical circuits delivering far greater amps than a measly 10 amps. Your wires are fixed mounted simple as that you pulse wire a onto wire B the mount connecting wire b will pull wire a the same amount. how can you not possibly see that ?

Sorry the above isn't accurate the [latex]\Lambda[/latex] term is originally placed as a seperate term on the LHS as it didn't affect the covariance. It's original purpose was to keep the universe static. In modern usage it can be moved to the RHS to act as a stress tensor as [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=-\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] However it is seperate from the metric tensor

First off [latex] g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] is strictly the metric tensor. The determinant being |g|. The LHS of the EFE is strictly the metric. The RHS where the stress tensor resides is where one accounts for mass/energy. Never the LHS. Secondly that article claims a Langrene being the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transform returns a constant of proportionality. Not a Langrene. So I would place zero faith in the rest of the article. Even if it were published under peer review.

As has been pointed out applying a force on wire b from wire a is not the force that is being applied to move the craft. You also never included the influence of wire b on wire a nor the effects of the wire mounts. In essence your calculations are far from complete enough to determine the force remaining to move the craft. For example it does no good to consider a force that is only 0.02 N at a distance of 0.1 m or even closer as you just proposed. the only calculation you have done technically is the amount of force wire A applies to wire B. If wire B could accelerate from that force is pointless because wire B is fixed mounted. That isn't the acceleration of the craft.

Or for the return trip a decreasing radius orbital return is one conjecture I have been considering. However we are essentially thinking along the same lines.

Ok let's do a quick terminology change. The reason being in QM perfect vacuums are hypothetically impossible. A type of vacuum devoid of all mass/energy including virtual particles is an Einstein vacuum. Once again it's a hypothetical vacuum state but it's a GR class of solutions. Also you can have any volume with this vacuum state which under GR is still 4d. It is incorrect to think that an Einstein vacuum means a loss of spatial and time dimensions. Keep in mind a dimension vin physics as well as mathematics is any independent quantity/variable or any other mathematical object. The x,y,z,ct coordinates count as such. For example the value of x can change without changing the value of any other coordinate. It is best to keep these definitions in mind whenever your discussing physics as they apply to all physics theories. The term dimension and degree of freedom are interchangeable. It may sound like not picking but you will find this useful in understanding theories that employ higher dimensions. Can't cut the image out but not important. On GR pressure is tricky to understand here is a simple to understand guide to how the stress energy tensor handles pressure in terms of flux. https://www.conservapedia.com/Quantitative_Introduction_to_General_Relativity This guide is a good stepping stone into the EFE. Einstein field equation. It also highlights several of the topics mentioned in this thread so far