Strange

You can try things out and see what happens: https://www.purdue.edu/impactearth

I'm not sure how you would define a "Big Bang" in this context, that didn't involve the destruction of the existing universe. Well, dark matter appears to have always existed. Dark energy has always had a constant energy density, so the amount of dark energy has increased over time. That is similar (but more gradual/continuous) than you suggest. More info here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-when-were-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-created-732fe2b19ed5 That would require different biases in several different measurements, that all conspire to be consistent. From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/31/dark-energy-may-not-be-a-constant-which-would-lead-to-a-revolution-in-physics/#5cbf71d8b737

The concept seems to have originated with Galilean relativity (but beware of Stigler's law of eponymy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy). But there was still the assumption of absolute time and space, as Bufofrog says.

I haven't read about this for a long time, but the two main people before Einstein (as far as I remember) were Lorentz and Poincare. Lorentz came up with the idea of length contraction and time dilation, purely based on empirical results (he always assumed there was some sort of "mechanical" explanation - such as speed shortening the bonds between atoms). Poincare did some more mathematical work on it (showing that it was a hyperbolic rotation, and various other clever mathy things). It was Einstein who put it all on a more formal basis by showing that relativity could be derived from first principles. The concept of a "frame of reference" is much older (not sure when it was first used). But the idea that observers would make different measurements depending on their frame of reference is due to the above.

Of course you do ! Moderator Note There is no science here. Thread closed.

Not sure what you mean by desirable... Higher frequencies enable higher bandwidth, which is why they are increasingly used (as technology develops) for high bandwidth applications. Shorter distances also mean lower power. So it’s a win-win There are still plenty of applications that depend on lower frequency, long distance wireless protocols

That isn’t a problem. It happens already. (Note that his doesn’t require any physical movement of antennas) They don’t need to be perfectly aligned. If you can reduce the spread of the beam by 50% you also halve the power required; if you reduce the spread to 10%, you only need 1/10th the power. Anyway, we were talking mesh systems with local communications

It is conserved. The rest of your post is complete gibberish

Lets assume momentum is not conserved? No, lets not. Ignoring the real practical problems that others have pointed out, yes. It produces a force in the box. It produces a force without the box. That is why it is not relevant.

I LITERALLY JUST EXPLAINED IT. For the bazillionth(*) time. (*) Some exaggeration may have been used for effect. Let me explain again: Because the only thing that is relevant is the momentum of the rock (or EMP) leaving the craft. (If it is in a box, then the rock (or pulse) cannot leave.)

Because the only thing that is relevant is the momentum of the rock (or EMP) leaving the craft. This is why it makes a difference if the whole thing is in a box. I know you don't understand this. But I have tried to explain it every way I can think of....

That is like saying that I am only considering the momentum of the rock leaving the craft instead of the force on the wall it was thrown at. Because it is (still) irrelevant.

Not at the front, I hope, or it will just go backwards.

Nope. You started off asking about throwing rocks at a board. It still doesn't;t move the craft (unless the rock bounces off the board and leaves the back of the craft. Do you see the connection: leaves the back of the craft. That is what is required for a rock to make the craft move. It is also what is required for an EMP to make the craft move. And those wires that come out of the top and bottom need to go somewhere. More than that, they need to form a closed loop. (Otherwise current cannot flow.)

Why? Why? I can't see any reason for this thread to remain open, then. You said "I'm not dealing with theories" but you started with this claim/hypothesis. As you list objects at various distances, where the redshift is not related to distance you appear to have falsified your own hypothesis. You mean, "instead of providing any objective evidence or analysis" The Earth, as one example, is the same size it always was. As are most of the planets. So your claim is falsified. You have provided no analysis at all. None. That is not how light is produced. No. 0K is impossible. The average temperature of empty space (which isn't actually very meaningful) is 2.73K. But in some places clouds of gas can be millions of degrees. Red shift has nothing to do with intensity.

All blue-shifted galaxies are much closer than that. https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/where-did-the-first-particles-of-light-come-from/

! Moderator Note This is a science forum. Not a place to post out of focus pictures with meaningless messages.

Not at all. This is entirely expected. Expansion only takes place at very large scales (between superclusters of galaxies). So nearby galaxies can be moving towards or away from us. I have no idea what all these tables of numbers are supposed to show. You ought to provide some explanation of what you are talking about. This is an unbelievably stupid statement. The temperature of bodies does not, and is not expected to, follow an inverse square law from the Sun.

It is still 6

That is because they are moving towards us. That is not surprising. You need to do more than just list a few objects to support this claim. (Which is certainly false.) You need to provide a statistical analysis of a large number of observations to show it is not just due to chance. What is the relevance of that? Nope. No math there. Just an irrelevant (unsourced) quote.

Yes. And I have told you lots of times. The fact that you don't understand the reason is the absolute, fundamental, key idea at the bottom of your misunderstanding. Until you understand why it won't work in a box, you won't understand why it can work at all (which isn't the reason you think). I think you need to figure it out for yourself before you will understand it.

What variables? There is only one variable, as far as I am concerned: the momentum carried away from the craft by the EMP. There appears to be only one variable, as far as you am concerned: the force on the wire. The first of these is changed by being in a box. The second is not changed by being in a box. So, which of those two variables do you think is actually the one that matters? Irrelevant, because that is not what we are discussing. The point is, you claim the propulsion is caused by the force on the wire. This force doesn't change when enclosed in a box. And yet the propulsion does. So why do you think the force is relevant to the propulsion? It is all very, very simple.

You are not answering the question... WHY wouldn't it work? The force is unchanged, so how can it not work? This is not a "side debate"; this is key to your misunderstanding. 1. IF the force on the wire were responsible, then it would not matter if it was enclosed in a box or not. 2. It does not work in a box. 3. THEREFORE the force on the wire is not responsible for the movement.

1. I am NOT claiming that the current in the wire will have no effect on the emp or vice versa. You need to re-read what I wrote. 2. If, as you claim, the force on the wire is what makes the craft move, then why does this stop when in a sealed box? The wire cannot know it is in a box. The force on the wire does not change because it is in a box. So why does the force not move the craft?

I (at least) am considering both. My example with the two spheres thrown in opposite directions, explains this exactly. There is a force on the wire that intercepts the left sphere (or pulse), no net force on the machine that throws the two spheres (equivalent to there being no reaction no force on wire A), the only thing that moves the craft is the sphere (pulse) leaving the craft to the right. The force has no effect on the craft (as you admit, because nothing happens if the entire system is encased in a metal mix). The only effect is the momentum that leaves the craft (as you admit, because nothing happens if the entire system is encased in a metal mix).