Strange

And, as I said, that isn't surprising. Evidence? Evidence? OK. I'll request this thread is closed if you are not willing to support your inane claims.

Pyramids are common in many places, because they are very easy to build. There are no man-made pyramids in the Antarctic. (But there are possibly natural pyramid-like structures there.) That is not good enough. The burden of providing evidence is on you, not people asking. If I search on Google, I don't find anything to support your claims. Therefore you are wrong.

What objective, measurable evidence do you have for this? What evidence do you have that it is possible to travel in time near black holes? What evidence do you have that black holes expand? You have made three claims. Now provide the evidence. That is how science works.

What exactly can you tell us about any of those things? It is fiction. Not factual and not science.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. But as there is zero science in the first post, I do not expect this thread to stay open for long.

And, in a real craft, most of the EMP will be blocked by things other than the single wire B. I have been considering only the effect of that (with a small diversion to talk about solar panels) because that is the only information provided.

If none of the EMP leaves the craft (which is entirely plausible in a real craft) then there is zero change in momentum, zero thrust, zero motion.

It would be far better to use a ship (perhaps an unmanned one) to collect the plastic and bring it back for recycling. Most plastics can be economically recycled. Ideally, this ship would be solar powered. Don't know who's going to pay for it though.

! Moderator Note Moved to a more appropriate part of the forum.

They would move apart anyway; dark energy is accelerating the rate at which they move apart.

OK. But if the EMP leaves the craft symmetrically, in all directions, then there is no change in the momentum of the craft (ie. no motion, no thrust). So the only way of applying some momentum to the craft is to make the EMP leave the craft asymmetrically (the more asymmetrically the better). So the only reason your idea may be able to generate some thrust is because it causes the EMP to leave the craft asymmetrically. The only reason it can cause the EMP to leave the craft asymmetrically is because wire B blocks part of the pulse. The wire will block that force equally whether it is carrying current in one direction, the other direction, or not at all. (It is slightly more complicated because if there is a current than that will contribute another EMP pulse which is also radiating away from the craft and carrying momentum. If things are symmetrical, then this will cancel out the effect of the first pulse.) [Edit: and it is even more complicated than that because there will be all sorts of other metal infrastructure that will also block the EMP pulse in random directions.]

This is correct. The wire will move. This will not move the craft. If you were correct, this would violate the conservation of momentum. You claim that the craft will move to the right. This means an increase in momentum to the right. To meet the conservation law (because there is no external force) there must be something, separate from the craft, that carries momentum to the left. There isn't anything, so it can't happen. I don't know how else to explain this to you...

This all appears to be 100% correct. This is 100% wrong.

And you need to think about why. There is still a force on wire B. If that force is what propels the craft, why doesn't it work in a metal box? It is exactly the same. (Apart from being spheres rather than disks! ) The current in B will make no difference (which is another problem with your analysis). You will get the same thrust with no current, or the current flowing in the opposite direction. The thrust is not caused by the force on the wire. How about considering the actual counter-example I presented instead of making up another (incorrect) one. Only send the spheres or pulses to the right (so there is no force on wire B) so they leave the craft. The thrust generated is identical (*) to the case where you also send a sphere / pulse to the left, which intersects with the wire. Therefore the force on the wire is irrelevant. (*) We know this from conservation of momentum. It can't do. Because the amount of thrust (defined as momentum gained by the craft) must be equal to momentum carried away by the EM radiation that leaves the craft in the opposite direction. Therefore this is (must be) independent of the force on the wire.

The why would putting the whole thing in a metal box stop it working? That will still happen in a sealed metal box. And yet ... no thrust. The comparison with the two metal spheres being thrown left and right is an exact analogy with your system. Unless one of the spheres/pulses leaves the craft, there is no thrust. Throwing the other sphere/pulse in the other direction contributes absolutely nothing. So, if you were to direct the magnetic pulse in all directions except towards wire B (so it never exerts a force on wire B) then you would get exactly the same thrust as you do currently.

This not true (the black body bit). However, as you say, the absorption/emission properties are measured so even if you had a different underlying model for that, it would not change its measured behaviour as a greenhouse gas. [Edit] I am pretty sure that when the first calculations were made which showed that CO2 could be a greenhouse gas (and industrialisation could cause this) there was no model of how the spectra arose. So changing the model, can't change the consequences. However, as you apparently don’t know what frequencies CO2 absorbs/radiates, it seems implausible that you can model them. As you say, this has been measured Then why are you denying it!?

Good point. I hadn't really thought about this, either. I guess one would need an array of point generators of magnetic pulses with precise synchronisation between them. I have no idea how (or even if) that could be done with magnetic pulses. But such point generators of EM radiation do exist, and have the advantage of being very efficient and highly directional, as well. (Yes, I am thinking of semiconductor lasers.)

Why? Why should there be a correlation between schizophrenia and political views? Or between a particular type of delusion (being targeted) and political views?

To be fair, I think MPMin is correct, in that it appears that a pulse that is shorter than the travel time from A to B does not exert a force on A (because there is no longer a magnetic field at A). I think this is approximately true. And doesn’t violate any laws. For example, consider a machine that throws two metal spheres in opposite directions, so there is no net force on the machine. The sphere going left can hit an object (eg a wall of the craft) and exert a force on it, still with no force on the throwing machine. ( The reaction force is on the sphere) If the other sphere (going right) is allowed to leave the craft then there will be a net thrust on the craft (to the left). The claim is that the craft is moved by the force of sphere hitting the wall. Whereas it is actually caused by the ejected sphere carrying momentum. And in fact, we can dispense with the left going sphere completely and just throw the right-going one out of the craft. This will generate exactly the same thrust, but uses half the energy. (And also proves that the force generated by the left-going sphere (or pulse) is irrelevant.) In the system described, it is even worse because "spheres" (pulses) are being thrown in all directions. Only a tiny barrier (wire B) stops a few of them, most have no effect (being cancelled out by others) and a few (those exactly opposite B) carry away net momentum and generate thrust. So, again, a hopelessly inefficient way of generating minute thrust.

Here you go, a nice shiny new example for you:

Why do you think such things are possible?

More to the point, why do you believe there is mind control?

Where do you get that from? That would be almost triple the population in 5 years. I don't think that is biologically possible. The current UN prediction is "World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100" https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html

It's relative (hence theory of relativity): it depends on the point of view ("frame of reference"). From the frame of reference of the Earth, the spaceship will be shorter. From the frame of reference of the spaceship, the distance to the Earth will be shorter (and the Earth will be flattened).

You have. But you either don't understand them or you just reject them as not being relevant. In summary: the force on the wires is not what move the craft. You can tell this, because the force on the wires is the same if you put everything in a metal box and yet, in that case, there would be no movement (as you admit). How can the wires "know" if the force on them is supposed to move the craft or not? They can't. The only reason this could produce some thrust is because of the different amount of energy (momentum) radiated front and back. And that difference is caused by the presence of the wire (not by the force on it).