Strange

You must have done the equation that relates force to charge and distance (Coulomb’s Law)? If not, look it up. If you don’t understand how to apply it, let us know

Again: the slight excess of electromagnetic radiation in the other direction because of the blocking/shadowing effect of the wire. It isn't. Apart from anything else, it would be trivial to build something which is a gazillion times more efficient than your system which your admit would be almost impossible to engineer. A passive system with no electrical components or moving parts would be infinitely more effective. So if, for example, someone were contemplating patenting something like this, I would strongly advise them not to waste their money. BTW the force on the wire is the reaction (that you claimed doesn’t exist) to the thrust generated by the “propellant” (EMP)

! Moderator Note You have had multiple threads on this already. You clearly do not want to understand. Unless you are willing to listen to explanations and learn something, there is no point opening more threads.

The force on the wire is irrelevant. And generating a force intermittently is not better than generating a force continuously. So your multiplication factor is bogus. Look at this diagram. The only reason you generate any thrust at all is because you "shadow" a tiny bit if the field by the presence of wire B. It will be a simple bit of school geometry for you to work out what proportion of the energy is blocked by B, and how much is just wasted. Now look at another naive implementation where we block (about) half of the radiation: Which do you think is more efficient? Imagine how much more efficient it could be if you generated all the radiation in one direction, Like this: O ---------------------------------- You know, like a ... laser, or something.

You can, but 120 years of theory and experimental evidence is not on your side. I am trying to help you. You will never accept any of the explanations being provided until you can accept the strong possibility that you are mistaken. Until you can do that, you are just wasting everyone’s time. No one will accept what you are saying (because it is obviously and trivially wrong). And you will never accept any explanation because you are blinded by your self-belief.

It is not reactionless. The thrust is generated from the (microscopic) difference between the pulse emitted to the left and right (because you are blocking/absorbing a minute amount of the field to the left). That is the reaction. It is so monumentally inefficient that it has no practical potential at all. Efficiency still matters because of the cost of the system, the time to reach a given speed (and hence destination) etc. Solar power could be used much more directly, and a bazillion times more efficiently using a light bulb with a reflector behind it. And better still, a laser. Or, even more directly, by using a solar sail.

See the posts above. (Note: you are obviously wrong, you just need to learn to accept that and then understand why. See also: Dunning-Kruger.)

Maybe try watching it again with an open mind: don't assume it is wrong; don't assume that you are correct. In fact, it would be safe to watch it assuming everything you think you know is wrong. Watch it and when you find yourself disagreeing, think about why your misunderstanding is different from the (correct) explanation been given. (I doubt you will do this. You are convinced that you are correct and that millions of people in the last 100+ years have failed to spot this trivial error in the arithmetic. Just stop and think about how implausible that is...)

I don’t know if it will help visualise it or not, but Wikipedia has a series of pages with “order of magnitude” comparisons. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

Possibly (now it is clearer what you are saying). But it would be hard to think of a less efficient mechanism for generating thrust!

The other directions are important when you think about efficiency. Your proposal is like throwing rocks in all directions but there is a narrow bar across one end of the craft. That narrow bar stops a tiny number of rocks and so there is a net thrust (because of the excess of rocks in the direction opposite the bar). So you are wasting energy / fuel by throwing it in all directions, just to generate a tiny thrust because a tiny obstacle blocks a tiny fraction of them. It would be much more efficient to direct all of the rocks (or all of the electromagnetic pulse) out of the back of the craft.

Maybe a balloon? But it is obvious how we can observe a balloon, so I don't really know what the question is.

No point. You will just ignore them again. (If you really want to know, just read back through all your threads and don't just dismiss all the replies as being wrong because they disagree with you. Actually think about what is said, and maybe you will be able to discover your errors. But you aren't interested, so I am not interested in repeating the same explanations.)

As Janus says, space-time is not a "thing", it is just a set of measurements. (If radio waves can pass through a box because of the nature of the atoms it is made of; they can't pass through a metal box, for example.)

So let's say that "A" is a seed, and which becomes a massive tree that you call "A". You are saying that the 100 foot high tree is identical to the tiny seed? Do you see how utterly ridiculous this is? The problem is you are confusing the name (A) with the thing it refers to. If you did a basic course in philosophy, you would learn not to make such silly mistakes. You would learn that stupid word games are not a substitute for thinking or logic.

Obviously wrong. You are confusing the momentum of the field with its ability to interact. Of course the momentum of the field won't be transferred if it doesn't interact with the material. But it will be transferred to a conductor. We know light has momentum and can push things. However, it will not push a piece of transparent glass (or negligibly so) because it doesn't interact with the glass. Similarly, tennis balls have momentum and will transfer it to a solid object. But if you throw tennis balls at an object that has lots of holes larger than the balls, then very little momentum will be transferred because the balls won't interact with the object.

The only way something can "accelerate in all dimensions" is if it undergoes rapid spontaneous disassembly (ie. it explodes). I'm guessing you have seen things explode? Or fireworks, maybe? This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread, so I don't know why you are asking. As the motion you are describing is not possible, observations are irrelevant. If you can imagine something moving in all directions at the same time, then you can answer the question.

I'm not sure. So far the only problem is your misuse of mathematics (mixing frames, swapping frames, etc.) Denying it doesn't stop it being true.

It is not clear what you are asking? How do we see an object explode? Or how do we see the expansion of the universe? (Which is not an explosion, and there are no forces involved.) Or how do we detect that the expansion started accelerating?

Ah, I missed that. I disagree on that point. However, I can now see an argument why that could be right.The magnetic pulse leaves the craft to the right (*) carrying momentum, and so the craft as a whole gains momentum to the left (the momentum of the right-going part of the pulse having been absorbed by the wire). (*) And all other directions, but they don't matter here; they all cancel out. Note that if this line of argument is correct then: (a) it has nothing to do with the push on wire B (which is just away of absorbing the momentum of the pulse); and (b) it is equivalent to something I suggested ages ago: shielding the system in one direction so that the momentum of the pulse can only leave the craft in the other. Let's see what Ghideon and others have to say about it ...

It sounds like the body has just exploded.

We don't need any details. But if you were to provide detailed calculations (currents, length of wires, timing of pulses, distances, etc. etc.) to show exactly how large the force on B is, etc. then those same details could be used to show exactly why the forces/momentum balances out. However, as you are talking only about the general principle, then we only need to show the general reason that it won't (we have the advantage of knowing that it can't work). I think that Ghideon has nailed it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48963235

Not really. A "fly in the ointment" would be observations that conflicted with (or couldn't be explained by) GR. So far, there are none of those. (Which is a bit disappointing.) It is just adding another parameter to the equations. Actually, not even adding a new parameter; just adjusting the value of one that has been adjusted several times in the past as new evidence came to light. Initially, Einstein gave it a negative (I think) value to make the universe stationary- because that was the assumed state of the universe at the time. When the universe was found to be expanding, the value was set to zero. Then, some observations (which turned out to be incorrect) suggested the universe should be much older and so the value was changed again. The more measurements were made and the value went back to ero. Then dark energy was spotted so the value was changed again to account for that. Currently, the are two different estimates for the expansion rate (and hence age) of the universe based on different measurement techniques. These might reveal new physics. Which might mean changes to GR or a new theory or ... Yes. (So you have answered your own question!)

I have just read Ghideon's explanation above. I think it is spot on. To summarise: the magnetic field carries momentum. When the pulse leaves A there is zero net momentum because the field is going in all directions and, most importantly for this case, lefthand right. When the field interacts with B it imparts momentum to the wire. But that momentum comes from the magnetic field (which effectively "disappears" at that point). Now the wire is carrying the momentum to the left while, on the far side, the magnetic field is still carrying the momentum to the right.These are equal and opposite so still zero net momentum imparted to the craft. (There will be all sorts of extra effects to consider if you analyse this in detail, like the fact that when B generates its magnetic pulse, it will be moving. And the interaction of this field with wire A. And so on.) The induced current will either add or subtract from that current (which will increase or decrease the force generated). I can't be bothered to work out which way round it is. We know the idea doesn't work. The challenge is working out why. As you are only proposing a general idea, with no details, then it only has to be refuted in general terms.