Strange

Sigh. It is a light bulb. Of course photons are emitted. You were asking about the magnetic field. Is it time to shut this thread? Your question has been answered repeatedly but you just keep asking the same thing over and over.

If you prefer the word "unchanging" then an unchanging current will result in an unchanging magnetic field. That is why the word "constant", rather than "static", is used for an unchanging current. No. Just unchanging, unmoving. Static. No. The field is static, unchanging and unmoving. Nothing is being emitted.

I will assume you are not being deliberately obtuse... When the current starts, you have a changing current and therefore a changing magnetic field. Within a very short time you have a static current and therefore a static magnetic field. That static case is the only condition that is relevant to your scenario, because you are talking about an extended period of time. There will, of course, be a short electromagnetic pulse associated with the initial change in current. Depending on how perfect your reflector is, that all either be trapped in the box (meaning no loss of mass) or will escape (taking away a tiny amount of energy and therefore reducing the mass). I still don't know wy you are inventing ever more complex scenarios instead of just understanding what you are told.

You can't apply concepts from Newtonian gravity to concepts that require General Relativity. For example cosmology or black holes. The results you get are just meaningless. It might be relatively simple to calculate the gravitational potential in the case of a non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black hole. But it isn't going to be the equation you are using.

Energy isn't conserved on cosmological scales. Before you can claim that, you need to show in mathematical detail that the mechanism you claim produces the same effects as Hubble's Law. And then, that it also explains the recent acceleration of expansion. Then you need to explain why general relativity is wrong. There is no such thing as negative mass.

And what are the results of these experiments? Which peer-reviewed journals have they been published in? It is trivially and obviously wrong. A notorious crackpot

This is a good post, but I would just point out that you are sing "humanist" in a rather non-standard way. I assume you just mean "human" (as an adjective) or something? Sorry: just being picky (again) but they are nouns, and the related verbs can be both transitive and intransitive. But I agree with your point that the OP needs to clarify what they mean by these words. I don't think there is any reason to think that something can be created "from nothing" (depending how "nothing" is defined) so I don't know why the OP is expending so much effort on it.

How do we “lose momentum”?

There is no evidence for anything created from nothing. So why are you claiming there is?

Of course not. They are different numbers. It is equally true (and equally irrelevant) to say that 5 cannot become 12. This has nothing to do with physics or creation/destruction. So, in summary, we have four provably false claims: And four that are unknown and, possibly, unknowable: You have provided no evidence to support any of these claims. So there is no science here and I will request this thread is closed.

Your claims of dividing by zero are false. To keep repeating this is therefore dishonest. This is why I asked you to define what you mean by "creation" and "destruction". Why have you not done that?

"Dividing by Zero is undefined." https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/dividing-by-zero.html "In mathematics it is a rule that we cannot divide by zero, because it contradicts the other rules of mathematics." https://brilliant.org/wiki/division-by-zero/ "In mathematics, division by zero is undefined." https://study.com/academy/lesson/dividing-by-zero-definition-lesson-quiz.html More here: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.divideby0.html

Please provide a reference to support his. It is blatantly false. This sentence appears to be meaningless. Unless you can define what you mean by "change related creation/destruction" and "relative creation/destruction". I gave examples of creation and destruction. So your claim they are impossible appears to be false. A finite universe can never become infinite. An infinite universe has always been infinite. Now, what evidence do you have that the universe is not finite? It is shown to be invariant by both theory and experiment. So this is false. You "explanation" is incoherent nonsense. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please not the rules for this section of the forum: in particular the need to provide support for your claims. Zero cannot be divided by zero either. Define what you mean by "creation" and "destruction". For example, we know that atoms larger than hydrogen are created in stars. And we now that, for example, matter and antimatter will destroy each other (and create photons). So your claim appears to be false. Do you have any evidence for this? Do you have any evidence for this? This is shown to be wrong by the evidence. This is also shown to be wrong by the evidence. Do you have any evidence for this? You have made a series of claims with no evidence. Several of them are know to be wrong. Is there any reason to keep this thread open?

physicaldivide has been banned as a sock puppet of scifimath.

Planck quantised electromagnetic radiation in order to explain the black body spectrum. That had nothing to go with the use of Planck units. It would be nice if it had some relationship to reality.

It isn't quantised. It is just defined to be 1 in Planck units. You can do that anyway. (Assuming by "radius" you mean distance between them.) You can do that in Planck units, or kg and metres, or pounds and feet. It still isn't quantised. It isn't quantised. That is the advantage of Planck units. All the basic constants are set to 1. Nothin what you said has anything to do with quantum gravity. You used Newtonian gravity.

It is a constant. How can it be quantised. It only has one value. That is 1 in Planck units and 6.7x10-11 in SI units. Just because you use Planck units doesn't mean it is quantised

He didn't.

"Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

Planck units are just units; they have nothing to do with quantisation. You can measure your height and weight in Planck units, if you want.

No.

And, by definition, if you calculate the value in Planck units it is 1.

Of course it is. You have just been shown the reason. It represents the constant of proportionality between force and the mass and distance. It has the value it does because we use arbitrary man-made units of measurement. I'm not sure what "mystery" you think there is.

Well, you could check other sources (such as the sources referenced by Wikipedia). For example, http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Planck+Units seems to be consistent with the values you quote. Maybe someone had the wrong values in Wikipedia for a while (you could check the edit history) or, quite possibly, your memory is incorrect. (Human memory is notoriously unreliable and easy to change.) If you are thinking of something like the "Mandela effect" then this is, pretty obviously, also down to the plasticity of human memory. (If you want to discuss this further, start a new thread. It is off topic here.)