J.C.MacSwell

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

I assumed his question was wrt the spinning disc in the OP, and for the simplest cases of uniform mainstream flow, the answer is fairly straightforward. There would be both lift and drag, except in the case of the main flow parallel to the axis of the disc and spin, in which case there would be just drag (oscillations from vortex shedding not withstanding but lift should average zero) It can certainly get complicated beyond that.

If there was flow in the main stream relative to the spinning disc in any direction except parallel to the axis of the disc, then yes

I wish I could answer that precisely. I don't think we really know what mass is. Rest mass has well known effects in it's frame and of course effects in other frames that must be consistent with that.

This reminds me of the old joke on being handed a ticket "70 miles/hour...but officer I haven't even been driving for an hour!"

Does an object which spins gain mass due to kinetic energy? Yes. It is energy within a bound system. It adds to the rest mass of the object. Can relativistic mass cause gravity? As per above example yes, but generally not and/or misunderstood. Some kind of emergent property of interplay between mass, kinetic energy and gravity...(well stated) but I don't believe that is enough to account for dark matter and likely is a small effect that has already been taken into account

Now I know why my radiant heater always frosts up in the garage...I wired the outlet wrong

1) not necessarily (only if by coincidence or design) After no longer in contact, aerodynamics aside, the c.g should follow a parabolic path 2)It could do that, if the timing, velocity ,angular moment and pitch orientation at take off are just right, and the landing ramp properly positioned and angled

Fluid would be drawn toward the centre of the disc from either side, and outward and in the direction of rotation along the surface and outer edge. This flow would effectively stop the Reynolds number from increasing without limit (by limiting the effective length, which can be chosen arbitrarily for the equation) and continuously increasing turbulence...so it would either fluctuate in some manner or approach a constant state depending on whether it was shedding vortices or not.

As much of a question as a statement...but from that perspective are not all known forces interactions between energies?

Fair enough, but in an absolute sense, for any and every inertial frame extended without limits, momentum is conserved...correct?

The context in this case with the topic at hand was perfect. I tried to google it but found nothing.

That's brilliant! (no pun intended)

The stiffness of the materials, and glue, come into effect, as well as the distribution of the forces that make up 50N net force. If, for instance, the 50N was all in that location and the blue material flexible enough, it would peel off, especially if the glue and board were rigid as it would limit the spreading of the load and concentrate it where the peeling was taking place. The higher numbers calculated would only be true if the whole area failed at once (In peel it could seem instantaneous, but it would not be)

Tidal forces and frame choosing aside, it would be more accurate saying gravity is equivalent to inertia, and resisting gravity is equivalent to acceleration (being accelerated).

Sodium Sulphate: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_sulfate The high heat storage capacity in the phase change from solid to liquid, and the advantageous phase change temperature of 32 °C (90 °F) makes this material especially appropriate for storing low grade solar heat for later release in space heating applications. In some applications the material is incorporated into thermal tiles that are placed in an attic space while in other applications the salt is incorporated into cells surrounded by solar–heated water. The phase change allows a substantial reduction in the mass of the material required for effective heat storage (the heat of fusion of sodium sulfate decahydrate is 25.53 kJ/mol or 252 kJ/kg[19]), with the further advantage of a consistency of temperature as long as sufficient material in the appropriate phase is available.

Don't assume it if is water at 32 and 37 F. You would be wrong.

For the OP... Generally speaking the light rays that enter your eye did not "start off at your eyeball".

Barring accidents slightly yes and generally yes, The title question is a little more profound.