/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14590081
This dude's entire "proof" is an ad lapidem argument. He dismisses the increase in angular velocity of a system with decreasing radius as absurd without actually providing any measurements or quantitative evidence to support this claim. The only somewhat valid argument he makes is that the kinetic energy of an orbiting particle seems to violate the conservation of energy as the radius is changed. Of course, the change in energy doesn't come for free, as the particle exerts a force of magnitude [math] m \omega^2 r [/math] on its anchor. Thus, for a particle orbiting with initial angular velocity [math] \omega_0 [/math] at a radius [math] r_0 [/math] the angular velocity at any radius can be expressed as [math] \omega(r) = (\frac{r_0}{r})^2 \omega_0 [/math], so the force exerted by the particle on its anchor at any radius is [math] F(r) = m \omega_0^2 \frac{r_0^4}{r^3} [/math]. Therefore to reduce the particle's radius you must do work on the system equal to [math] -\int_{r_0}^r F(r') dr' = m\omega_0^2 r_0^4 (\frac{1}{2r'^2})|_{r_0}^r [/math]. In the case presented in the paper, [math] r = \frac{r_0}{100} [/math], so the energy required to reduce the particle's radius to this value is [math] \frac{1}{2} m \omega_0^2 r_0^4(\frac{100^2}{r_0^2} - \frac{1}{r_0^2}) = 9999*\frac{1}{2} m \omega_0^2 r_0^2 [/math], which is, miraculously, 9999 times the system's initial kinetic energy, meaning that the total energy of the system would then be [math] 9999E_0+E_0 = 10000E_0 [/math], which is exactly what is predicted by the conservation of angular momentum and what he arrives at in his paper.

I am literally being hated now for my discovery. I am censored on every single forum and will likely be here as well because history is being made and the person making it must suffer hatred, and banishment. Is there any other way than dying a hated pauper before the message can get through!
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics
pls no bully