pzkpfw

Sorry, that probably wasn't a differential lock. That was probably for free wheeling hubs. It disconnected (or connected) your front hubs to the front axles. It was so when you were driving along in 2 wheel drive, the front wheels could turn without turning the front diff or the front drive shaft. Saves fuel and wear and tear (including tyres). One of my Father's several Land Rovers (this one was a Series II soft top) had such manually controlled front hubs. If I was out with him, it was my job to hop out with a short bit of broom handle, with a slot cut in the end, to activate/deactivate the hubs. More modern vehicles do this automatically.

It's hard to parse that. But to repeat: At time T when the Moon is at position X, any and all light hitting it that's reflected, will later hit your eyes at the same time. (Based on the speed of light and the distance between you and position X). * All light reflected at time T will show position X. * All light reflected from position X, came from time T. It doesn't matter if that light originally came from any combination of our Sun, your new small Sun, lasers on Earth, or starlight from many light years away. You will only see the Moon at one position at a time. Your extra sun, your walls ... will not change that. The only thing you will affect is the brightness (and maybe colour) of the reflected light. (Exactly when you see such effects depends on the positions and timing of the causes; and I can't follow your last post well enough to confirm one way or another.)

It's not at all clear what you mean by this. Inertia is the quality of mass that means it resists acceleration. e.g. Moving things don't want to stop moving. Non-moving things don't want to start moving. On your original question: think about how fast your disks spin inside your DVD player. Many times a second. Compared to that, no, a little jiggle of the box they are in won't do any damage. But further, adding this thread to your previous one - it seems to me you are a bit obsessive about potential damage to your DVDs. I am not qualified to give medical advice, but, I think maybe you should go get some advice from someone who is (a mental health professional). Assuming you are not simply trolling.

I'm rounding to the nearest banana. Also, how is this relativity?

Yep. I'd say it'll take 8 minutes for light to get from the Moon to you, so you'll see it where it was 8 minutes ago. That light itself will have left the Sun 16 minutes ago - but it's when the Moon reflected it that matters here. ( Consider going out on a moonless night (away from town) where everything is lit only by starlight. That light took many thousands of years to get to Earth, but the objects seen (slightly) illuminated by it will not appear as they were thousands of years ago! )

1 is 1 2 is 2 3 is 3 But 123 does not equal 321.

Some info (i.e. it's been done (in ways)): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

Should somebody let the authorities know that this toy company is breaking the laws of physics? https://www.hexbug.com/nano

It's the time cube.

I must be missing something. Somebody arguing for the properties of the fabric of space, quotes Tesla for support, who said "... for the simple reason that it can have no properties ...".

Why is "frequency" such a magic word among the woo?

I think the question is more about the lifetime of the device, not how long it holds a charge. Googled [ shelf life of electrolytic capacitor ] ... but was confused by the results as they seem to imply pretty much any device I have (that has such caps) that's older than three years should begin to fail! Must be missing something.

This isn't a speculation. Maybe you meant: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/28-suggestions-comments-and-support/ ?

There's an XKCD for this. https://xkcd.com/505/

Do you think that if there are (apparently) two choices, both are equally likely?

So many words, so little meaning.

Do what?

Your disgusting edit of my text is a claim, not an answer. Right, so the thread on the threaded rod is not moving to the right, only the nut - with rotation restricted - is moving to the right. So what's the helical movement?

Nine pages in and you have not yet made clear why you think transferring the nut is not a mass transfer that will cause a reaction. Just the mythical "helix motion". Again, put a paint dot on the thread somewhere. Give the rod a bunch of complete turns. Where is the dot?

@John2020 , maybe this would be a useful exercise for you? Take a look through the threads by "LB7" over at this other forum: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80651.msg615121 He also thinks he can beat conservation laws. He makes thread after thread which boil down to: straight lines are different to curves ... then with some magic (I've really never been able to see how he expects to get it in or out) he proclaims that he gets unbalanced non-conserved energy. The exercise is: go through his threads and see if his explanations make any sense to you. Compare to your own.

Nothing in your device is moving in a "helix trajectory". Consider putting a dab of paint on the thread. Give the threaded rod several (many!) complete rotations - where is that dab of paint now? Either way, the thread is pushing on the nut - that's what's making it move! So the nut is pushing back on the thread. No free lunch. It's just like the mass glued to the belt in your previous thread. Any time you think you've found a loophole in the conservation laws, it just means you've designed a system too complex for you to analyse.

Yeah, so, magic. This would be very very simple to test. Try it!

If the screw is pushing the mass right, why doesn't the mass push the screw left?

michel123456, consider John in the 1700's rides his horse from London to Glasgow for business. When he gets to Glasgow he mails a letter home to say he got there safely. Back home in London his family get the letter 2 weeks after he left. Question: do they think it took him 2 weeks to get to Glasgow?

Just a note, "Fictitious" is not a synonym for "magic".