Please go back and look again at how Galileo and Newton defined the reference frames for their laws. A translating frame does NOT change the relationship. Otherwise our 33,000 mph trip around the sun would make a big difference in your tire wear as you turned certain corners!
A rotational frame of reference is not inertial. The rotation of the Earth does cause effects that can be observed. We need pseudo forces, centrifugal and coriolis, to make the physics work whilst on Earth. I did
not say a
translational reference frame created force. I tried to explain, badly obviously, that if unrestrained (i.e. allowed to translate) then we are in an accelerating frame of reference. To visualise the asymmetry I suggested the advancing/retreating concept.
You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about simple engine balancing
If you say so Graviman, what I was trying to point out, is that an engine is a closed system (in essence). We can see where the torque is generated and the forces necessary, ultimately all are accounted for and the engine does not spontaneously translate. A lot of effort is made compensating for the various momentum changes and therefore eliminating the unwanted forces.
then proceed to try to tell us that not only should we disregard linear momentum but that physics has been wrong for years about conservation of energy
Again, quite the opposite. I have attempted to explain how the laws of physics govern the various apparent interactions in Jiff's machine.
I have tried to identify the bit of Jiff's machine that appears impossible. It proved difficult firstly because it is not drawn, it is part of the assumptions.
The static case works perfectly, but then again there can be assumed to be a reaction force at the driveshaft, keeping everyone happy. Once it is free to translate then the generation of torque, also implies a generation of reaction force. If not the circular motion becomes highly erratic.
I've said before, we are seeing half of a complete engine. If you analyse a rotor head and blades, the fact that you don't inculde the generation of the torque (or torque reaction) does not make it an invalid analysis, it gives highly useful results. It just leaves something to be solved elsewhere.
Patent offices are littered with designs for machines with similar principles to Jiff's. They all fail to completely bound the system. For Jiff's system the trick is being able to generate instantaneous torque, and maintain it at a known position, for others it is the moving of the mass (apparently without having to use a force to move it.) I personally favour the use of anti-matter to increase and decrease the mass throughout a cycle!
