pzkpfw

Do you think that if there are (apparently) two choices, both are equally likely?

So many words, so little meaning.

Do what?

Your disgusting edit of my text is a claim, not an answer. Right, so the thread on the threaded rod is not moving to the right, only the nut - with rotation restricted - is moving to the right. So what's the helical movement?

Nine pages in and you have not yet made clear why you think transferring the nut is not a mass transfer that will cause a reaction. Just the mythical "helix motion". Again, put a paint dot on the thread somewhere. Give the rod a bunch of complete turns. Where is the dot?

@John2020 , maybe this would be a useful exercise for you? Take a look through the threads by "LB7" over at this other forum: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80651.msg615121 He also thinks he can beat conservation laws. He makes thread after thread which boil down to: straight lines are different to curves ... then with some magic (I've really never been able to see how he expects to get it in or out) he proclaims that he gets unbalanced non-conserved energy. The exercise is: go through his threads and see if his explanations make any sense to you. Compare to your own.

Nothing in your device is moving in a "helix trajectory". Consider putting a dab of paint on the thread. Give the threaded rod several (many!) complete rotations - where is that dab of paint now? Either way, the thread is pushing on the nut - that's what's making it move! So the nut is pushing back on the thread. No free lunch. It's just like the mass glued to the belt in your previous thread. Any time you think you've found a loophole in the conservation laws, it just means you've designed a system too complex for you to analyse.

Yeah, so, magic. This would be very very simple to test. Try it!

If the screw is pushing the mass right, why doesn't the mass push the screw left?

michel123456, consider John in the 1700's rides his horse from London to Glasgow for business. When he gets to Glasgow he mails a letter home to say he got there safely. Back home in London his family get the letter 2 weeks after he left. Question: do they think it took him 2 weeks to get to Glasgow?

Just a note, "Fictitious" is not a synonym for "magic".

Given you've used "humanity", maybe "humankind" is better than "peoplekind"? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/man-mankind-or-people And who is "we" anyway? We, meaning me, have not seen "peoplekind" in common use.

Absolutely. When I croak, my kids will hopefully remember me a while. ... but they are unlikely to know if my last thoughts were of heaven, hell, or pizza. (And I won't behaving any more thoughts!)

So another sort of analogy then: This thread of yours seems like saying "given a banana could ride a bicycle, I claim it would compete in the tour de France" ... and then trying to say "I don't want to talk about how a banana rides a bike, just the impact on the cycle race". After someone dies, what is retaining their last thought or feeling?

That the T.V. has no consciousness is no issue, because there is zero evidence that consciousness persists after the death of a person. It doesn't matter what the last thought of a person was (heaven, hell, pizza), as after death they longer have any thought.

I have a dead Plasma TV - pain in the neck to get rid of so sitting in my spare room for now. The last image it showed before it went "pop" will forever be the last image it ever showed. (Past tense) But right now it's just blank. It's not doing anything, nobody looking at it sees anything. So I get that the last thought or feeling a person had before they died is the last thought or feeling that person will ever "have", but I don't see how that has any real meaning. When a person dies, their thoughts and feelings are gone. They are nothing. They don't continue to actually "have" that thought or feeling, especially when you write "Assuming no supernatural consciousness of any sort emerges after death". So how's this mean anything?

Personally I'd just go for a simple tree:

Thanks. That made a few things really click in my head, in regards to understanding the "twins paradox".

How is this better than a regular crankshaft and connecting rods?

For the observer to whom the apparatus is length contracted, the mirrors are moving. I figure that can't be ignored as light has a finite speed.

Cross reference (same posts at ISF): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=345483

I saw a thread that started with a question but became preaching. That's disgusting.

Was there a question?

At this point, all you have still, is argument from incredulity. Why is this a "problem"?

Because the Universe is changing and they are observing at different times, yes, that's possible. Will you answer my questions? 1. Do you think an observer of the Universe 1 hour after the BB would see the same thing we do now? 2. In your scenario, how would the hypothetical me be asking the other about the BB? Where did I get information from that he didn't have?