Strange

It can't work because it would violate conservation laws. I guess that the explanation would need to take into account the fact that the magnetic pulse from the second wire, B, (can we call them A and B, for simplicity) would induce a current in A and therefore a force on A. If you were to do the full calculations, this (and maybe some second order effects) would exactly counter the force on B. Also (even if it could work) this is, by definition, is an incredibly inefficient way of generating a force. Just think about it: the magnetic pulse is carrying energy in all directions (360°) away from wire A. A tiny fraction of that field (and energy) intersects with wire B to generate a force. Let's be generous and say that B subtends 0.1° when viewed from A. That means that only 1/3600th of the energy is being used to generate the force. It is hard to imagine a less efficient system.

There are multiple speculative ideas for what might have happened: big bounce, continuous inflation, universe from nothing, infinitely old universe, and on and on. There is no evidence for any of them currently, so pick your favourite. Dark energy would seem to make the big bounce unlikely, but maybe future discoveries will make it plausible again.

More of your ridiculous misuse of language. First you say: "A becomes something different" then you say "A is not different." This is exactly the same idiocy you posted before. Things obviously change: a seed becomes a tree, a small tree becomes a larger tree. You can call the small tree Acer palmatum and you can call the larger tree Acer palmatum but that doesn't mean it hasn't changed. Please stop posting this nonsense and wasting everyone's time (including yours).

Should be? Why? (There is no evidence for this.) Our model of space-time depends on it being continuous.

! Moderator Note Either take an introductory course in philosophy & logic or stop posting this drivel.

Absolutely not. (But I am still thinking about why ... And need to read Ghideon’s post more carefully)

I guess you are thinking of spacetime as some sort of "grid" (perhaps due to drawings that try to represent curvature). It isn't. It is, necessarily, continuous.

Here is what an actual scientist says about this (not wishing to dismiss the comments by actual scientists on the forum, of course): https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/

What does “fall through” mean? What does “smaller than space time” mean?

There is a reason for that

It might defy intuition, but that's not the same thing (and not really relevant!)

There is no nothingness around it. The universe is all there is (nothing outside) It is not expanding into anything. If that is hard to get your head around, there are two things that might help: 1. Assume the universe is infinite. If it gets bigger, it is still infinite (see Hilbert's Hotel for a good analogy). 2. Just think of it as the distance between things increasing, rather than the universe getting bigger. 3. Or think of it as the average density decreasing. Note that even if the universe is finite, there is no "edge" or boundary, so there is no "outside".

Aha. I think I see what you are thinking now. You are suggesting that the magnetic field will exert a force on the second wire, with no reaction on the source (the first wire) thus "getting around" Newton's third law. I would need to think about why this won't work. (But I can guarantee it won't.) Maybe with this clearer understanding of what you are saying, someone else will come up with a good explanation.

That is the length of the space shuttle. The fact it is wrong, is not really relevant. Well, top marks for creative thinking. But it could be a the length of 34 Mass Transit Railways. Or 34 Mid Term Reviews. Or 34 Magnetic Tape Recorders. Meanwhile, back in the real world where "34 metres long" means the length is 34 metres.... the mass is still unknown. In the unlikely event that it is referring to 34 metric tons, that is equivalent to about 1021 joules.

The mass is what appears missing. It was only specified as "enough anti-matter to get the US space shuttle (34 Mtr long), to the nearest star." If you know how to calculate the mass from that, then the question can be answered.

I guess this comes back to the difference between "observation" and "measurement"; in general, I don't think there is any difference: you interact with the system in both cases. Take the double slit experiment for example. There, the detection of a photon (which did not go through the slits, but is entangled with one that did) can change the result of the experiment. Now that detection is effectively passive; it is just an observation. We don't need to count the photons, or record the fact we detected it, or any of the things that might make the semantic difference between a "passive observation" and a "measurement". Just the fact that photon interacts with the apparatus, can change the behaviour of another photon.

I don't think there is enough information to answer this. The amount of fuel isn't determined by the distance, but (roughly) by how quickly you want to get there; ie. how long you are accelerating for.

Nice little video zooming in from the ALMA telescope array to the black hole itself: https://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso1907c/

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

I think that Wikipedia page, in its entirety, provides a comprehensive answer to the question. Unless the OP has an example that isn't covered there? And is perfectly summarised by this: In formal logic, the law of excluded middle ([math]A\vee\neg A[/math]) is an axiom and so does not require proof. I don't think the concept of formal proof is relevant in other areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Can define what you mean by "contradiction"? And in what field: math, physics, chemistry, engineering, art, sociology ...

The trouble is that a thought experiment won't tell you what will happen, just what you think will happen. And, when the thought experiment involves something non-realistic (going back in time) we cannot know what would really happen.

Off the top of my head (it is getting late), I think the force will be at right angles to that; in other words, either up or down, in your diagram (depending on the direction of the currents). I'm sire someone who s feeling sharper will confirm or deny ! Having woken up, I realised this was wrong! Your diagram is correct (assuming the currents are in opposite directions).

I don't know. That is why I am asking: how large are the experimental uncertainties referred to by John and how much larger are the uncertainties in the measurements you are referring to? Approximate numbers and sources, please. But this may be off-topic. So feel free to ignore it (or report it if you want this split off to a separate thread).

OK, so his (unevidenced) views on gravity were wrong. But that doesn't mean that his work showed that electromagnetism (ie. Maxwell's equations) is not compatible with GR (which is what I thought you meant, initially). No in this thread.