Ghideon

I think I can explain but I need some more time to write it down. I’ll post later today.

A theory should be based on something, papers or books from mainstream science. What postulates do you start from? Can you provide references to material we can start from? Something you have read and understod and based your work on?

Maybe you can provide some references to material you base your claims upon? Material you have read and understod. If we base the discussion on some sufficiently detailed sources any misunderstandings may be sorted out?

Can you have someone record and document the next few times you leave?

True. Since you insist on analogies the correct analogy is that your system is a Gauss gun with the projectile welded solid in the barrel, trying to propel iself. (In the right context quite funny I think.) I think @Strange is correct, per Maxwell an EMP will contain a mix of energies. But one may be dominant. There is a short text on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

Momentum is not "lost", momentum is conserved. By proper application of that principle you can propel things. Invalid application gives disappointing results, or leads to wrong conclusions such as belief in the possibility of reactionless drives.

I think the above is a better way to explain what i tried to do with words "static" vs "transient". My two cases using causality as word: 1: Causally attached = "Ampere's force law", force and equal counter force inside the structure, between cables=no propulsion. Modeled by fields or simply apply Ampere's force law directly. 2: Causally detached = momentum is carried away, modeled by particles leaving one part of a system and then leaves the system or hits another part of the system. 1 does not apply as far as I can see, not useful to model the proposed system. 2 is useful; particles moving around, obeying the conservation of momentum.

I realize that this answer is much better than mine! I suggest we put my idea on hold until @Strange ’s post is addressed; my attempt at a model would be based on, and require the reader to understand, conservation of momentum. (And maybe the model of EMP is better handled in a separate thread). Excellent! This is by the way what i tried, and failed, to show with my rocket contraption with many engines.

Since you started the thread asking about rocks we have used analogies and if you still do not see the connection to the cable situation we need to try a different approach without any rocks or rockets. Ok? The problem may be that we lack a common model for the magnetics and cable interaction, the sketches and general statements lacks the details needed to communicate any issues. Shall we move on and just look at the magnetic idea only? I think a few simplifications can be made so we do not need to use the full set of Maxwell’s equations. I can only think of two alternative concepts to start with: “static” or “transient”. Static, in its simplest case, is Ampere's force law*. Other basic cases are a electromagnets or electric transformers. Transients (electromagnetic pulse**) would be things radar pulses or solar flares etc. Exactly how the puls behaves or what it consists of is not yet important, I will address that in follow ups. The important thing is that in a transient case there is no time for the system to “settle”, the distance and time of travel (at speed c) between parts affects the outcome. Since you switch of the current in the first cable before the signal has reached second cable a model would need be based on transients. Would this work as a method? If so I’ll try to suggest a very simplified model. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law#Special_case:_Two_straight_parallel_wires **)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

Again: Any propulsion generated will be from the pulses sent in any other directions, out from the system, like a rocket thrusting vapors into space. Sending pulses (or shifting matter) inside the system does not generate propulsion.  Here is the rocket again. This time "improved" to work as the cable sending pulse in every direction and another cable interacting with the pulse. Both cable part of the same system. IF this rocket moves, in which direction will it go? Which one of the engines does not have any contribution to the propulsion? Why not do as @Strange have said numerous times, use one pulse in one direction? Does the contraption below look efficient?

No it will not. Thanks for pictures, makes it easier to see the idea. It fails since you can't beat the conservation of momentum. 1: Ampère's_force_law Special_case: Two straight parallel wires, currents in wires makes them attract or repel. In this case there is a force F acting on the left cable, and an equal force F in the opposite direction acting on the right cable. If cables are mounted on a common rig the force is an internal stress on the rig. No propulsion will occur. But since current is switched of very fast this situation is not applicable, we look at the second case. 2: Electromagnetic pulse, a transient electromagnetic disturbance*, is sent from right to left cable. The pulse will carry momentum. This is the same as throwing a rock from right to left. Countering the incoming pulse ("Catching the rock") with a second pulse from the left cable does not generate propulsion. Any propulsion generated will be from the pulses sent in any other directions, out from the system, like a rocket thrusting vapors into space. Sending pulses (or shifting matter) inside the system does not generate propulsion. To repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. And before you post next modification or new idea, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. *) A more detailed wold have to be supplied by other members; I would need to read up on Maxwell and understand the type of energy (radiated, electric, magnetic or conducted) and maybe range of frequencies shape, duration and amplitude of waveform. Hopefully the simplified cases above are good enough.

Maybe a drawing will show where the error is. Photons leaving=propulsion, as in my rocket example. Photons sent between components inside system=no propulsion, as in my example with a rocket in a bubble. Or in other words: Any kind of device trying to capture some kind of stuff that wants to leave the thing you want to propel, will act as a break.

Not clear what you mean but I'll try: A rocket is at rest in our frame of reference in space: The rocket starts the engine. It uses internal combustion of fuel. The combustion causes expansion of hot gases. The expansion causes pressure in the engine resulting in forces that accelerate the gases in the only way possible; out to the left. The gases have momentum P. The force accelerating the gases causes a counterforce on the rocket. The rocket gains momentum P to the right. Center of mass of the complete system gases+rocket is not moved. Total momentum is conserved P-P=0. The rocket shuts down the engine and moves at constant speed in our frame of reference. Gasses continue to the left. The center of mass has not moved. Total momentum is conserved P-P=0 Now we try to do an invention, let's put the rocket in a bubble and use a collector to gather the exhaust gases and use a machine to generate fuel from the vapour. Will the invention work? The combustion C is still internal in the rocket, exactly as above? The forces from the vapour will be the same, acting on the rocket? But as I have said a few times, conservation of momentum can't be beaten. The double will not move its center of mass. Now no mass can leave the system. The collector will have to stop the vapours. The forces required balances the momentum P of the gases. At best there will be some wobble while masses are moved around. There will be a lot of internal stress on the components, none of those forces will have any impact on the center of mass of the complete system, the bubble, the rocket, the gasses in motion etc. Note that if we instead of vapour use photons it does not matter. You can't beat conservation of momentum.

Read my answer above, it already explains internal / external. It looks like yo missed it. Again: Internal forces does not generate propulsion. It doesn't matter how many cables or magnets or rocks or trampolines or batteries or particles or "pulses" you have, their interaction, internally in the system, cannot make the complete system move its center of mass or make the complete system accelerate. Period. You can't beat the general rule of conservation of momentum. But you can unintentionally fool yourself, or other forum members, by not defining the system correctly. As I said above. If you analyse the internals of a rocket (or other) there are many billions of forces or interactions. There are macroscopic parts pushing against each other (bolts, screws or other) and particles (electrons, protons, atoms ...) etc. The particles may have magnetic fields and momentum and there are forces governing their interaction. None of those internal forces, or any kind of sum or composition of such forces will have any impact on the momentum of the complete system. It doesn't matter if it is the force between an electron and the nucleus, the magnetic fields in a battery or between cables or if is molecules in a muscle moving an arm that throws a rock. Internal forces does not generate propulsion. Investors will not be interested. Hint: Try analysing your idea without using forces (if F=ma is tricky to apply). You seem to get sidestepped by the fact that a force at some time t=0 may be unbalanced and then countered by some force at some time t>0. Unbalanced forces doesn't automatically generate to propulsion. Use momentum instead. Where and how is momentum generated?

At his time it is the other way around. Science has gathered evidence that the world is round and you keep stating the earth is flat. Reality does not seem to agree with the number of time dimensions you propose.

First, to repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. And before you post next modification or new idea, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. I have already explained about wires and radiation, your way of seeing does not match how reality behaves. Your "what about this variant of..." is already beaten by the more general principle. You would have to work on the fundamental level of physics, not some detail in magnetics/mechanics/rocks/trampolines Trying another angle. Conservation of momentum is extremely general. It's not one type of conservation of momentum for a few cases of macroscopic mechanics, another conservation of momentum for electricity/photons/particles etc. It is the same principle. Try this thought experiment*: Let's say you have come up with one case in everyday life where conservation of momentum is broken. That means objects can gain momentum without force applied. That would mean, since a very general principle is broken, that such things could happen all the time? Celestial bodies leaving the orbits. Subatomic particles leaving their atoms. Forum members and moderators spontaneously accelerating in every direction. Cars impossible to stop since they gain more momentum than acceleration provided. Such a universe seems rather chaotic and not what is observed and therefore not a very likely scenario. If conservation of momentum is wrong** it is wrong for everything, it would not be isolated to a few cables in your system. Note: always be very careful when defining the "system". Example: I could say to an inventor: "No your idea of space propulsion is wrong, conservation of momentum is not possible to beat, your rocket engine is a failure". Inventor "But there are fumes coming out from the back of the rocket, look!" I say: "you can't beat the conservation of momentum. The rocket's centre of mass is not accelerating." Inventor "AHA! I see! you define the rocket as the shell, fuel and exhausts! The complete system! I don't include the fumes from the engine, they leave the system." Me: "Good point! I got it wrong!" That is a different thing, the engine will work in space and your rocket will accelerate." The above case is intended to be kind of childish but intended to illustrate that this is one aspect of each and every kind of reactionless propulsion I have come across. The inventor and/or the one analysing is missing some aspect or failing to realise where boundaries are. Before posting more variants of attempts please read and analyse the responses so far. I think you might be close to that aha-moment where the conservation of momentum makes sense in the general case? Maybe you need to ask some questions about the conservation of momentum from a more general point of view, instead of wasting time on one case after another where the answer is known to be you can beat the law of conservation of momentum? *) Disclaimer: Quick post, not much time to think too deeply about the correctness of this part. **) Im not discussing universe as a whole here, I think universe was mentioned in an earlier post. For instance the accelerating increasing distances between remote galaxies is not "propulsion". On such scales "proper velocity" etc complicates the discussion too much for this thread.

Aha! That’s how you got it all wrong! Now you can use the forum and ask questions about how light and the various models behave and when they apply instead of posting more invalid models based on misinterpretstions of videos.

Ok, you want to overthrow every piece of physics ever discovered by mankind without even bothering to elaborate? That makes it kind of hard to contribute with analysis of the ideas you present. I don't think Einstein and the others you mention presented only part of an idea and hoped to gain support? Didn't they present enough to allow other scientists so see that they were right (or to allow other scientists to spot issues or ask for improvements / corrections). So far you have presented nothing that shows that your "concept" is an improvement over current models or theories, everything presented points at the opposite; the basic concept you try to describe is incorrect. Then you should be able to present some of them here if that is required to follow your idea? Yes. If you did you would see where your ideas have issues and where current models are applicable. That is probably one of the main communication issues we have here! You are using words from mainstream science, words such as "photon", "wave" etc. Those words are backed up by some really detailed mathematical definitions, some of which may be above primary school level. When using the words without those mathematical models the words loose their scientific meaning. When you say "photon" and then reject the models and math for the mainstream science concept of a photon you have nothing left. I think you need to present a very detailed alternative model for light and probably invent new words that does not already have a very precise meaning. Or stick to, and try to improve upon, the current model that current experiments done with current equipment have confirmed to be valid.

First, to repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. And before you post next modification or new idea, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. That said, If the system gets external power you have another situation so to answer the solar panel question I think of two cases: A: If the system driven by the (small) pressure from the solar wind then you have an external force acting on the system. Result is propulsion (=solar sail, not reactionless drive). B: If you use the sun only to power parts of the system we can use a thought experiment. Neglect particle pressure or locate the system where the particle pressure is equal from all sides* so no external force act on the system. Gravity is neglected. Solar panels gives the system power**. If you use the power to send out particles or radiation in some way you have a "rocket", not a reactionless drive. If you use the energy internally*** there will be no force acting on the system, result is zero acceleration. *) I don't remember, is that at the terminal chock? **) This is a thought experiment, solar panels likely not very useful at this location ***) Neglecting infrared radiation from machinery, leaking radio signals or other things that could propel the system. Or making sure that any such radiation is symmetrical.

Good point! A reason for these effects to be tricky to realize intuitively could be the scale difference. Additional analogy: 1: When giving a wheeled cart a hard push you feel the recoil. If the ground is slippery you will gain momentum backwards. 2: When lighting a flashlight you will not feel a recoil. But the conservation of momentum still applies, it is just that even a massive amount of photons do not posses enough momentum for you to be able to feel it in everyday life situations. And with energy instead of visible light this may be even less visible, but as @Strange states, the effect is still there. Case 1 is probably easy to compare to a rocket engine. Case 2 is less obvious.

I'll try two different ways: A: It might help if you think in terms of "force" rather than mechanical work, electromagnetism, rocks or photons. If you want to move (=accelerate) an object you must apply a force. If no force is applied the object will not accelerate, it will stay at rest (or continue to move at constant speed). When a magnetic field is generated to repel some object where are the forces? For instance when a maglev train is lifted up (=vertical acceleration for a short while) the earth is moved in the other direction. The center of mass (train/earth) is not moved. If you have fixed wires pushing at each other, how could there ever be an external force pushing the complete rig where both cables are mounted? Water jets, rocks, magnetic forces... they are all obeying the same principle. B: If you prefer to think of "small bursts of photons" or "small packets of energy"* in transit between locations you will need to take into account that photons carry momentum. Conservation of momentum applies. Three cases: 1: If you sent a burst of photons in one direction you have a "rocket". Momentum of photons is balanced by momentum of the rocket. 2: If you collect the photons again at some other location of the rig you have no movement, you will not be able create a reactionless drive. Momentum gained from sending the photons are balanced by the momentum lost when receiving the photons. 3: If you collect photons sent by some other party you will have propulsion, for instance like a solar sail**. *) Not very rigorous but hopefully it illustrates the point **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

(bold by me above) If you send photons in all directions you have a different setup, it is not a closed system anymore? Does the second wire (=antenna) also send in all directions? Note: no matter what idea you propose, conservation of momentum wins.

You might want to reread the thread then. I gave you an opportunity to get you ideas analysed regardless of any kind of background. Your education (or possible lack of education) does not matter at all. You have got whatever (limited) scientific feedback I am capable of, questions are asked and issues are identified, that's all. But: that also means you have to be willing to receive and analyse that feedback, answer the questions constructively and address the issues. It also means that since this is a science forum, for science discussion, lack of detail and rigorous explanations may be preventing the kind of feedback you seem to expect. Sorry, I am unable to follow that description of the experiment. I don't think the introduction of "mental" and "minds" helps in this case.

I simply ask questions about things i don't understand to be able to improve my analysis, here as in other situations. If you are not interested in a genuine attempt at a scientific look at your idea then this discussion can end here. If you just look for some support for your ideas then you are in the wrong forum and I'm the wrong individual. Given your ability to explain and style of explaining your ideas so far it make perfect sense that great thinkers (and all other others) are unable to grasp.

No, this is the speculations section where you defend your idea. Please answer my questions.