Strange

The motor is irrelevant. As are the wires. As is AC. Whatever the source of energy to spin the disk, the argument is the same. Substitute "the other disk" if you like.

This is quite important, 514void. 1) If the disk is physically attached to the battery which provides the energy, then as the disk is spun, there is no net change in mass (the battery loses mass and the disk gains it). Therefore there is no change in momentum and no change in velocity. 2) If the battery is not fixed to the disk, and the disk moves relative to it, then spinning the disk causes a transfer of mass to the disk, which means it must slow down to conserve momentum (= mass*velocity; therefore increase one and the other must decrease). So, we can look at the whole system as an example of (1) above: the disk and battery are part of the same system so simply changing the mass distribution between the battery and the disk does not change the momentum of the system, and therefore the velocity of the system does not change. All you can do is move things around within it.

Lets try an equivalent model and see where it gets us. I will assume that your spinning disks are not being driven as they move from one end of the container to the other - they are just given a shove at each end. (Is that what you are thinking?) The this is equivalent to having two ice skaters (to eliminate friction) who go backwards and forwards, pushing themselves off each end of the container. The ice skaters represent your non-spinning disks. With a single ice skater going to and fro, the container will alternately be pushed in one direction and then the other. No net movement. With two skaters in antiphase, like your disks (till not spinning), then they will be an equal and opposite push at each end. No net movement. As the equivalent to your spinning disk, one of the skaters is carrying a bowling ball. Half way down, the skater with the ball passes it to the other. At this point, the first skater speeds up (conservation of momentum) while the other (now with the extra mass) slows down (same reason). This means that when the first skater gets to the other end, they are travelling faster so, despite having less mass, they will impart the same momentum to the container. Similarly, the skater now carrying the ball, has extra mass but less velocity and so imparts the same momentum to the container in the opposite direction. Conclusion: No net movement. Now, you say the disks move at constant speed. This would mean they have to be propelled by some mechanism. You can go through the same process as above, with the two people standing on conveyor belts or travelators. In this case, the changes in momentum are transferred to the moving belt. The conclusion is the same: No net movement.

It is hard to answer many of your questions because the premises are so vague. I assume deliberately, so that you can keep changing things when there is an objection. But basically, in whatever mechanism you have pushing the the wheels up and down and/or transferring energy between the wheels. If you were competent to do a complete, systematic analysis of your system (instead of just asserting: "it is magic and defies the laws of physics") then you would see where the flaw is. Because all you do is make vague claims, all we can say is: no.

Didn't Newton say this several hundred years ago? And then, usefully, go on to formalise it.

No. Your belief is non-physical. The belief that transferring momentum, in particular from one direction to another, will have no effect. "Cancelling out acceleration" is non-physical. Creating momentum from noting in non-physical. Your understanding is non-physical. There is something called the "conservation of momentum". So, if you transfer energy-mass-momentum from an object moving in one direction to an object moving in another direction, then there must be an equal change in momentum, somewhere else in the system, in the opposite direction.

That is correct. It is your pretence that a change in momentum will magically not affect anything else that is non-physical.

I still don't see how you distinguish something "clever" from something "non clever". Or are we back to "everything in nature is clever"? Which is semantically empty.

Good point. The propoulsion system is powered by wishes rather than physics. (Does that mean a fairy dies every time the cylinder moves? #sadface)

That is exactly what we are asking you. It is obvious the world is foofy, and full of squenk. But this "clever" you talk of, well I'm not so sure. Perhaps if you told us what it was and how to recognize it....

So no evidence at all for this idea? Just "the universe is the way it is" (and you think that is "clever"). Please attempt to provide even a verbal definition of "clever"; currently, it appears to mean "exists". For examples, is there anything, anything at all, that is "not clever"?

Of course it wouldn't. Quite the reverse, in fact, because it is true whatever the initial state of motion of the container. Wrong.

I didn't think anyone was worked up or frightened (until you mentioned this). But it does seem to be a common reaction to being questioned to think that those who disagree must be "scared of the truth" or some such nonsense. The problem is that you haven't defined "clever" beyond "it looks clever to me". Until you can provide a definition and an objective test to determine whether object X is "clever" or not, then this idea is of absolutely no value. It is just an expression of your aesthetic appreciation of the world around you. (Which we all share for evolutionary reasons.) How would one measure or otherwise test an object (ideally in an automatic clever-o-matic machine) to determine it's cleverness level (where greater than 8.7 confirms your hypothesis for example, while less than 6.39 disproves it).

What you say here has no basis in reality. Why come to a science forum if you are just going to make up stuff? Maybe you should take up writing science fiction.

That is exactly why it doesn't work.

There is a change in momentum, though. Yes, you are transferring mass (and therefore momentum) from one wheel to the other. This has nothing to do with electrons, AC or DC. And when you transfer mass (momentum) from one wheel to the other. I give up...

Why would you think it does? At this stage you are transferring energy (and the equivalent mass) and therefore momentum. Why do you think that is relevant? And haven't you already been told that there is no net transfer of electrons with either DC or AC? Why would you think that? Please present a mathematical analysis that demonstrates this. Why do you only consider one change in velocity? It isn't. Why do you think that relativistic mass is different from any other in this respect? You have had the explanation spelled out to you repeatedly.

If you don't have much free time, why don't you spend it on something useful or constructive. Maybe get an education?

In this context, it may be better to think of the fundamental as the "natural" frequency of the system; i.e. the frequency it would oscillate at if unforced. Under certain conditions, it can then be forced to vibrate at frequencies that are integer fractions of the fundamental (as well as the fundamental and harmonics).

Then it would appear that you are wrong. Apart from some photochemistry, photons are not involved in chemical reactions. It is mainly electrons. By the way, there is a button under posts marked

You are transferring mass-energy from one to another, if there is no change in velocity there must be a change in momentum (alternatively, if there is no change in momentum then there must be a change in velocity; either way the net result is the same). As you are claiming to defy the laws of physics, perhaps you should be providing an analysis of the forces involved.

You are transferring mass. And therefore momentum. It is perfectly explainable. All you need to do is understand that energy and mass are equivalent. There is no "magic" to spinning disks or relativistic mass. It is exactly the same as tossing weights between the two (non-rotating) wheels as they pass. Clearly, then, all that is happening is that mass is moving backwards and forwards with no net change in position or velocity.

Yep. I wouldn't say it is the "electromagnetic bond" (that sounds more like electric charge). But it is, among other things, a measure of the degree to which photons interact with electrons. There is a list of the physical meanings here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Physical_interpretations

It is not clear what you mean (as usual). The rotational speed is (obviously) driven by the motors. The movement up and down the container is driven by springs or whatever it is you are using. How can you say you do not know what causes them to speed up and slow down when it is your scenario?

You want to bet?