J.C.MacSwell

After a (short?) period of time the Earth would tend back to the same mass distribution and rotation speed, would it not?

Well, at one point there was no life, and now there is...so there is that.

To harvest as an energy source? You can't even break even if you simply plan to reoxidize the hydrogen.

Which is generally the case for our frame. I guess the Hubble Expansion protects us from being fried...

So theoretically any photon can approach infinite energy by simply picking an inappropriate/useless enough frame…a frame where probably no mass exists at rest, and the excessive energy would have no significance

So lost that he can agree on the measurement of something…even with someone twice, or half, his size...

some 80+ so...yeah

That's where the Demons come in...you can't beat the second Law without them. I could of course use your hygroscopic system at the top, continuously removing water from the air and dispensing it into the reservoir...more Demons

I don't believe (I am guessing, someone correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure it is a good assumption) that we have enough accurate data to know if the path of Triangulum is part of an ellipse or even curved. We can extrapolate backwards using known Laws, and assume that it is.

The bold is true of your system also. So why can I not claim my turbine system is a heat engine as well, with my pool of water evaporating at the bottom and condensing in my "Macswell's Condenser" (complete with a team of Macswell's demons to work it) at the top? Why will this not work? It is a similar uphill battle in each case. I can't design the condenser I require, and you will not find a hygroscopic substance and box opening/closing system that will do what you require. Admittedly part of a circular argument, but the reason we know that is because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You could put the same constraints on the turbine. In time either system, if isolated, would come to a stop. They both need a source of energy to keep going. You seem to recognize that, so what is it that you believe is unique in your system with regard to entropy?

How is this different in principle from how hydroelectricity is commonly generated? In principle it could work (without breaking any thermodynamic laws) . Can you make it efficient enough to be useful? Note that the energy is provided by the atmosphere (Sun) in both cases, to provide water at a higher elevation...gravitational potential energy.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51186-the-impossible-machine-runs-faster-than-the-wind-pushing-it/

The magnus force manifests due to a frictional effect of a spinning cylinder or sphere in a relatively moving fluid. (it effectively changes the shape of the object) Where a standing vortex is maintained by the surrounding flow, the frictional effect would be opposite.

Good question. I would expect that the more stable boundary layer of the latter, which would be slightly less than 100 C, especially in the beginning when the egg is cooler, would slow the heat transfer more than the furiously boiling water. I think this would weigh more heavily than the partially vaporized boundary layer of the former case conducting less than that of the latter. It would be interesting to see if there were any experimental results as a number of factors are at play.

I would expect a greater difference in the weight imbalance as well. The reason I suspect it is not this in SJs case is that I think StringJunky would recognize it fairly readily. I don't believe he would have started the thread if it was essentially just a gravitational/pendulum affect, and if sufficiently dampened to only do 1/2 a cycle it should be sufficiently dampened to not happen at all during some of the trials...unless he was remarkably consistent with each trial, and at that in each direction. The affect that I believe is happening in the OPs case (assuming it is the affect I am familiar with) is that the slowing wheel loads the bearings and puts a torque on the system, including forks or what have you, which can put a bit of bending moment and add a bit of energy to the system...this also increases as it comes to a stop as the friction transitions from dynamic to static, and then of course leads to a recoil affect after coming to a stop.

I think it is something like that. When I've seen this phenomenon it always seems to recoil just a fairly small amount, and happens more noticeably with tighter pressure on the bearings. When it is eccentric weight imbalance it is generally a longer reverse rotation depending on where it stops initially. You can check to see if it always heads back toward the same point.

That's why I was thinking more of a stray field of ice asteroids...perhaps escaped from another solar system after some plausible event.

I think that's along the lines of a pretty good suggestion though. A hitherto undetected ice asteroid field takes on the Earth in a great snowball fight. A real meteor "shower". Assuming it is steady and unrelenting until it floods the Earth, Everest included, my quick back of the envelope calculation says it would take about 5 weeks and 5 days.

…and with experience and judgement we become accustomed to considering it by observation alone in everyday life. We have been wired to subconsciously do the fuzzy calculations to interpret what we see.

Per Milkyway sized galaxy? Presumably? Does it happen more at certain distances/epochs?

Maybe it's time Father Ted helped us out...

I am not sure exactly of the point you are trying to make. Are you are saying that space (say, everyday Cartesian space) is not "as seen" but "as seen and calculated", or not as observed but as observed through the perspective of experience? Compare to Minkowski Spacetime, which would always, I think, be "as seen (measured) and calculated", and we don't get to experience it in everyday life in the same intuitive manner.

You see the train coming. You do not see the light coming. You only "see" it arrive.

If you feel no gravitational counteracting acceleration you are weightless in your frame of reference. If you are orbiting the Earth you are weightless. If you are in free fall you are weightless. If you are on the Moon you weigh about 1/6 what you weigh on Earth.