Strange

Even if you find some sort of correlation there (which is quite possible) all it shows is that we (consciously / cleverly) use negative feedback in a similar way that nature uses it automatically / unthinkingly / uncleverly. This.

Objective would mean that your evidence was quantitative and measurable, that it could be compared against experiment or observation and, within certain error bounds, no one could reasonably disagree with the results. What you have is "it looks nice", "smooth curves", etc. These are all completely qualitative and subjective judgements.

What effect would moving a mass between them have?

Transferring energy is identical to transferring the equivalent mass.

OK Why is there a net force moving the energy one way and not the other??

You say, "any extra energy" as if you think the motors spinning the wheels don't need any energy. And don't you see that if you are transferring the energy from the power source to the wheels and back again, there is no net change? Most importantly: do you understand that (relativistic) mass and energy are the same thing? Transferring energy to and from the power source or between the wheels is exactly the same as moving mass between them. Do you understand that?

No I don't mean that at all. Of course spinning something will not create a net force. Do you think it will? Why? And why would the disk speed up or slow down? I mean that you are just moving stuff backwards and forwards. The "stuff" is the rest mass of the wheels and the energy that gives them increased "relativistic mass". Moving stuff backwards and forwards will not propel you anywhere.

Why does it have no net force? (This may be the key bit you don't understand.) You are reversing the direction of your relativistic mass (aka energy) at that point.

Is anything "not clever"?

That seems irrelevant. You have transferred the energy from one disk to the other. Therefore the energy (which is where your "relativistic mass" comes from) is reversing direction at the top and at the center. I think I will give up. You clearly can't see that all you are doing is moving a couple of masses and some energy backwards and forwards which will have no net effect.

So? You have to reverse the direction of that extra mass (energy) at the top when the wheel reverse direction and at the middle, when you transfer the energy from the downward-moving wheel to the upward moving one.

Yep. However you analyse it ... nothing happens. Although, eventually the whole thing will stop when you run out of energy. And then you will have wasted a huge amount of energy not going anywhere. A bit like this thread.

Which makes your definition of "clever" fairly meaningless. Is water "clever" for running downhill?

So you have two equal rest masses moving up and down the whole length of your container. No net effect. You also have the energy (extra "mass") in the spinning wheel moving up and down in the top half of the container. No net effect. (This is actually clearer if you cover up either the top or bottom half of your diagram.)

Where is this extra mass coming from? You are failing to take the entire system into account. The extra mass comes from the energy you give the disk. That energy must have come from somewhere, e.g. a battery. So the battery will lose an equal amount of mass. When you take that into account, there is no net change in position or velocity.

It is objective evidence that negative (and positive) feedback occurs naturally. <yawn>

I think it was approximately in free fall (1) and that implies that there were no significant obstructions. A not terribly interesting factoid. (1) Does anyone know the error bars on this estimate? It might be on that graph but it is illegible.

<sigh> But that extra mass will have come from somewhere. So you have already moved the mass in one direction, now you are just going to move it back again.

I don't insist on one definition. But I will continue to use this (and muon decay) as an example that time does not have to be defined in terms of change. Although, of course, it can be for some purposes (such as measurement).

It is a dimension in GR.

Two problems with this. 1. There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing. (And therefore, as far as I am concerned, no reason to take such an assertion seriously.) 2. Common sense is a notoriously unreliable guide to anything. It is usually wrong. That is why the scientific method has developed. This seems to be an argument from incredulity against a straw man. As such, rather pointless.

It may be necessary to point out that when Einstein said, “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity”, he was joking... The measurement of time, yes.

That is true for the words "moon," "love" and "space" as well. I think we can all agree they exist. Do you really think someone invented the word first and then tried to find something to apply it to? Really?

What is the point of spinning the disk? To increase its mass, I assume. Where does that extra mass come from? The energy source. (And swansont has asked the other obvious question.) There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

You are using energy to make your disk spin. This extra energy is what is called "relativistic mass". This energy has to come from somewhere (a battery? a tank of gas?). When you slow the disk down again, the energy has to go somwhere. All you are doing is moving energy around. Which is no different from moving mass around and, therefore, will no provide you with any form of propulsion. TANSTAAFL