MPMin

Because it seems inaccurate to only pick the nearest or most relevant frame of reference when in fact your frame of reference is also moving in relation to another frame of reference and so on. No it doesn't. And never does. A hypothesis is basically a guess. If you want to get into an argument about this consider who’s the educated one; the guess or the person making the guess...

That’s the point, I’m not talking about using just one as it’s not relative to the another possible frames of reference so you have to use them all which is impractical.

That’s why it would be impractical to collectively reference them all at once (but maybe one day it won’t be impractical) Exactly! And at some point science has to just take a guess and say it just appeared there out of now where like magic.

There is such a frame of reference it’s just impractical to use

Isn’t this part of science interpretation of observations, this ‘journalism’ is just another opinion of the same observations That’s why they might actually be stationary, in other words, no momentum. If an object has experienced a force to make it move surely it has momentum, wouldn’t it make sense to then choose a frame of reference that hasn’t had a force applied to it? This depends on your definition of magic.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/38982-no-big-bang-bouncing-cosmology-theory.html The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

The Big Bang is theorised to have just magically pop into existence so I’m making the same assumptions there. I was really just wondering if it was possible to have momentum without a frame of reference?

I have a question related to this subject and statement; Would it be fair to assume that if you are in position xyz and have never experienced a force against you making your momentum 0, could this mean you are actually stationary?

to live

Ah .. here’s the trap, so if momentum isn’t conserved because your rock analogy doesn’t work inside the box, the magnetic field component does still work inside the box. As the force on a current carrying wire in a magnetic field is a known thing, it would now seem that the momentum of the emp is irrelevant factor and the only part that’s now relevant is the magnetic field acting on the current carrying wire, thanks Strange. Obviously the greater the distance the greater the distortion, Im talking about very short distance here

As this hasn’t been tried before, I’m applying the most relevant formula, its fair to a assume that segment of the continuous magnetic field will retain the same properties. I’m not sure what you mean here?

And what about the magnetic field effect on the current carrying wire? Is this some kind of closed loop logic because its been assumed to not work in a box? Let’s assume it does work in a box, does the magnetic field component produce a force on the current carrying wire now?

It was said somewhere that everything has been tried before, I can’t find any experiments or discussions about this. The emp carries a magnetic field as referenced already, the force on a wire carrying a current in a magnetic field is determined with F = I x L x B, as it would seem this hasn’t been tried before, there is enough evidence from related studies with continuous currents to try this You haven’t actually explained why it won’t work in a box

It’s not irrelevant, Because in the rock analogy as for the emp, the rocks also have a magnetic field, I’ve explained and given references to how a magnetic fields effect wires carrying a current and Ive given references to show that emp has a magnetic field component, how is this irrelevant?

This only refers to the momentum of the emp. You haven’t addressed the magnetic field component of the emp which is what causes the force on wire B when wire B carries a current.

Considering the Polarity of a the magnetic fields when the current is continuous i dint see why it change when the current is pulse If you recall I stated that the current is also pulsed in wire B, the current would be stoped in wire B before the emp reached the other side The same way it does for a continuous current. The pulse is a segment of the continuous current so why would it’s orientation change? If the air were able to enter through the front and exit out the back yes it could, would it be the best place for the prop, no but i also said my system would be mounted outside the craft

I haven’t ignored this i just haven’t addressed this yet. The wires do not necessarily have to be in a loop or coil formation. The wires could be aligned in a zig zag type formation where the wire feeds in from the top and comes out from the bottom. If you agree with 5 surely 6 will work too

Which of the following points carries the error? 1. Wire A emits an emp 2. The emp from wire A detaches and is no longer connected to wire A 3. The emp from wire A carries a magnetic field 4. The magnetic field in the emp from wire A interacts with wire B but does not interact with wire A 5. As wire B is carrying a current in the magnetic field from A, a force is produced on wire B as per F = I x L x B 6. As wire B is attached to the craft, the craft moves with wire B

Can you tell me why it wont work in a box?

You are asking for a reference that uses the emp the way i am proposing which hasn’t been done before. But I have posted a reference for every part of my system and each part has been supported. It was a question

What if it does work in a box?

You are right in that I’m not answering your question about the box because you are wrong about this not being a side debate. There are too many variables to consider making this consideration inconclusive. A conventional propeller propulsion system wont work in a box ... for long but it will for a little while, will it move inside the box, maybe a little, it also depends how big the box is and does that mean it worked? Would it move the box, probably not but what if it hit the wall inside the box? Could that mean it worked? Does it mean it didn’t work even though the engine ran for a while and blew air around inside the box? In any case, just because any propulsion doesn’t work inside a box doesn’t mean it wont work outside the box so I don’t see your point?

What are you saying then? I say it wont work in the box because most things don’t work in a box and I don’t want a side debate as to why it would or wouldn’t work in a box with all the additional variables of the box analogy.

And the magnetic field produces the force on the wire when its carrying a current. Thats how electric motors work, when you pass a current through a wire which is in a magnetic field, the wire will move, that’s why wire B will move when a current is passed through it when the magnetic field from emp A is present at wire B

I don’t know of any system that would work inside a metal box so I’m not sure how you are concluding that the current in the wire will have no effect on the emp or visa versa with this analogy? Therefore your sphere analogy only references the momentum of the emp and not the magnetic field component the emp. If i have said ‘magnetic force’ of the emp i meant to say magnetic field, i may have used the terms interchangeably unintentionally. But here is what i am saying: The emp detaches from wire A The emp from wire A interacts with wire B If wire B does not carry a current when the emp from wire A arrives, the magnetic field component of emp from wire A will not produce a force on wire B with formula F = I x L x B When wire B carries a current when emp from wire A arrives, the magnetic field component of the emp from wire A which is no longer attached to wire A or the craft (detached), the magnetic field produces a force on wire B with the formula F = I x L x B