Strange

It is rather frustrating when people claim to have specific evidence and when asked, they just say "google some random generic random words". These are not "real" monopoles. And, as far as I am aware, no one has achieved room temperature superconductivity. Please feel free to provide some actual evidence. And what do either of these have to do with the generation of electromagnetic radiation by a plasma? Nothing, apparently. Well, you seem to have got your wish. It is now under the appropriate topic.

Could you provide a reference to where this evidence has been published?

It is a metaphor, you can't take it too literally but one way to think of the effects of relativity (time dilation, length contraction, etc) is that an object moving relative to you swaps some of its "movement through time" for movement through space. The Lorentz transform, which calculates these effects is, effectively, a rotation between the time and space axes. You can think of it as being related to the fact that kinetic energy is given by 1/2 m v2 (without getting into the whole derivation). Also, velocity3 times mass wouldn't have the units of energy.

I think "can" rather than "does" might be more apt. There are many possible solutions to the equations, only a subset of which are physically realistic, and only a subset of those which might describe the universe we are in. A second is a measure of time, a light-second is a measure of distance (the distance light travels in one second - about one and a half million furlongs ).

No, I assume mass-energy behaves like, well, mass-energy. You seem to assume that it has magical powers. I don't see why you think the length of the system makes any difference. You are simply moving mass (energy) from one place (the power source) to another (the wheel). You could do this more easily by chasing an elephant from one end to the other. However you do it, this movement of mass will (must) will take place at less than the speed of light and so the center of mass will move at less than the speed of light.

Of course it wouldn't. Why would you think that? You can only move the disk at less than the speed of light and so the container will only shift in the opposite direction at less than the speed of light.

Assume for simplicity, that the spinning disk (or bowling ball or whatever you use) has half the mass of the container. If you move it from one end of the container to the other, the container will move half that distance in the other direction. That's it. Done. Now you want to move the mass back to the starting position so you can do it again. Guess what: the container will move back to where it was. It makes no difference whether you do this with spinning disks, AC or DC motors, bowling balls, jets of water, or buckets of jellyfish. You are simply moving backwards and forwards and not going anywhere.

All mass produces gravity but is not made up of gravitons. Why should black holes be special?

There are solutions to Einstein's Field Equations with no matter or energy. Within these models, space and time exist.

You are just moving energy backwards and forwards, which has exactly the same effect as moving mass backwards and forwards. And using AC to power it makes no difference at all. An AC motor would use exactly the same amount of energy as a DC motor used to spin your wheel up to the same amount.

514void, I don't know what part of this you don't get: you can't move things around in a closed system to change its net momentum. This is like designs for perpetual motion machines: it doesn't matter how complicated you make it or how many weights, wheel, pulleys, levers, buckets, etc. you add, the answer is still no.

The units we use to measure time are based on oscillation. That has nothing at all to do with the concept of time as a dimension, in for example, GR where the dimensions have nothing to do with change or oscillation. But, as always, this discussion is pointless.

I'm not sure what you mean "made by". Photons can be emitted by electrons accelerating or changing energy levels in an atom. But they can also be created by any other charge being accelerated, or by nuclear fission or by many other processes.

Of course. But there is a difference between the models produced by people doing science and people just thinking about concepts. And the difference is that they are quantitative and productive (unlike "mmm... time is change, man"). The really cool thing about scientific models is that they are mathematical and hence practically useful. General Relativity. (Although I don't really now what you mean by "units of time"; I assume it means anything you can claim is defined by change.)

That the speed of light is constant for all observers.

The difference is that one's mental model is a purely qualitative thing based on instincts and ideas we have developed through evolution and exposure to the macroscopic, low energy world around us. These mental models are often inadequate for, and bear little relation to, the practical, quantitative models developed by science. They aren't. (But I doubt you will ever accept that because you seem to think your mental model takes precedence over scientific models.

The thing is, it only makes sense to you in relation to change. That has nothing to do with physics. But these two sorts of models are very different. Your mental model of time requires change. A physical (mathematical) model of time doesn't.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. All of the posts that mention time as a dimension in GR (which does not involve change). Except that you insist it must involve change because (a) you don't understand the concept of a dimension and (b) you believe time involves change. That is really interesting. I'm sure that can give us some fascinating insights. But into perception not physics. I apologise if I have come across as abrupt or harsh. Not my intention....

And like all who hold this belief you will continue to dismiss all evidence that contradicts it. (Which is all you have done up to know.) This is why it is quasi-religious: no evidence for it; dismiss all evidence against it. Why are you posting on a science forum.

I was only aware of two postulates: the principle of relativity, and the invariance of c.

No more than your claim that you had to "defend" the book just because someone said it wasn't fully up to date.

And now you are back to man made units to prop up your belief. In GR, time and space are dimensions of a four dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Change is not involved.

The meter is now defined as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 second. So we are back to begging the question: "I am going to say that units of time are units of change and therefore time is defined as change". That isn't how dimensions are defined, nor the units used to measure those dimensions.

Quite. But I really didn't think the question deserved serious consideration. Although, on second thoughts, your explanation makes it clearer that they are equivalent as dimensions.

Units are irrelevant. But obviously the temporal dimension is measured in units of time. What does that tell you? Nothing.