J.C.MacSwell

The momentum of that energy cannot simply be transferred, complete with reversal of sign, without an equal but opposite reaction. You cannot simply turn momentum on and off at your convenience. There must be an exchange, and the balance maintained, at all times.

The rigorous part of physics is what you are missing. You are ignoring seemingly insignificant details on one side and perceiving them as significant effects on the other.

The force we are discussing to move the mass equivalent of energy is really really small. it is not something that would normally be of any significance.

OK. Where does the energy come from to spin the wheels? Where is the source of that energy? How do you account for the mass inertia of that energy? How does it get displaced to the double wheel system?

Thanks Janus, that is what I suspected though was not absolutely sure. So there must be an axial force (as well as the torque, and separate from the one proposed by 514 for acceleration), however slight, that would push the driving energy along the axis of rotation, which would then reverse and then disappear as the energy is transferred?

Thinking through this without implying any certainty (read- JC not sure what he is talking about) I don't think it will work. I think Conservation of momentum must hold... having said that: ...but if you are transferring energy by pure torque (could be balanced torque/counter torque double flywheel discs on same axis, so the main body of the system remains stationary), you are displacing energy along the axis of rotation... If you can do that with no balancing opposite effect, you have introduced a mechanism to displace the center of mass of a closed (isolated) system, contrary to the law of conservation of momentum. and having said that; Since you cannot do that...what is the balancing opposite effect? The main body (slightly lighter, having lost some energy) should be displaced just enough to maintain conservation of momentum when it pushes energy along the axis (so in fact does not remain stationary)

It is interesting. I think if you are displacing energy wrt the centre of mass/energy in a closed system, there should be an equal and opposite displacement of mass or energy such that the centre of mass energy cannot change. So where at each stage is there an equal but opposite effect?

Unless of course, they are actually an Antarctic Penguin...with reversed polarity.

Can you modify the trap to make it lighter or to increase the potential energy?

Keep it light! (J.C. waits patiently for the Nobel prize level idea to sink in...) More on track...What are the rules?

In a clockwork Universe (as far as we know we are in a Universe that is, at it's roots, a Quantum one, but I digress...) anything that could go wrong, must go wrong. Fairly easy to deduce anything you want logically, if you use the "right" set of assumptions.

Seems like (my uninformed guess) a fair bit of antihydrogen might be required to get a meaningful result. What is the most that has been produced in one place at one time?

T being the tension on the rope (just in case it is confused with representing torque) and I think the right side of the equation needs the 4m as well, or alternatively cancelled out on the left...

Do a free body diagram of the forces at the top of the rod

Assuming the weight of the rod to have no significance: As you can see from the fact that the rod is pinned, not fixed, there is no torque on the rod, it can only be in tension or, in this case, compression.

Not sure what this means. Time dilation is rate of time passage going forward, not something affecting history. Anything happening at the event horizon must be consistent in all frames.

In the absence of any shear forces, the shape will tend to spherical, or bulged more or less depending on rotation. This holds for any planet large enough where the shear forces overwhelm the strength of the material it is made of, though it is less so closer to the surface where the forces are reduced.

Your answer is indeed, correct!

By typing it out and clicking "post". How did I do?

If I am free to choose any non inertial frame of reference...I can make it appear to curve any way you like.

If it worked it certainly would defy the laws of physics. This should be your indication that it will not work. The only way to use the laws of mechanics to "prove" the laws of mechanics wrong is by using bad assumptions or bad math.

That is a fairly significant amount...almost a minute...what causes the fluctuation (Jupiter? just a guess...) Happy...that point in the revolution....everyone

Why I don't have a new theory of the universe...Well, it could be that the answer is just too simple, and I'm simply not smart enough to see it.

You have the angular momentum of the water in the bowl, any further angular momentum introduced by the flush or shape of the bowl, and the usually insignificant coriolis effect all coming into play