/sci/ - Science & Math

I can reject a paper because you're a schizo
in fact I just did

>>14591678
No, you cannot reasonably do that.

>What has been overlooked is the simple fact that as we reduce the radius, the circumference is also reduced which means that the ball has less distance to travel in a single revolution and therefore does it more quickly.
hmm you make sense though.

>>14591668
Post video evidence where you spin yourself into orbit by breaking conservation of angular momentum.

this
>>14591678

>>14591753
Arggumentum ad stupidum is unreasonable behavior

>>14591668
See
>>14590390
>>14590934
This post will go unaddressed.

>>14591779
This is totally nonsense. To address my paper you have to point out an equation number and explain an error within it which stands up to rebuttal, or accept the conclusion.

>>14591787
>To address my paper you have to point out an equation number and explain an error within it
You mean exactly what both of those posts do? The first guy addresses the conceptual flaw in equations 10 to 19 and the second one gives explicit equation numbers. As the first guy pointed out, you have provided no rebuttal or argument other than calling things absurd without evidence to support your claims.

>>14591809
Claiming a conceptual error in a range of equations is making up lies. This is maths you have to point out a single equation and explain the error within that equation or accept the conclusion.

>>14591817
Alright then, you = wrong. Sorry, it's math. You can't claim it's a conceptual error or you're lying.

>>14591817
That's what they did

>>14591700
good morning sir

http://www.baur-research.com/contact.html
john@baur-research.com
>whois baur-research.com

>>14591822
Absolutely. Maths is proof and you have to fault the maths not make false accusations of a conceptual error. Ther is no such thing as a conceptual error in maths. Not in a range of equations. A single equation contains an error okay. Claiming a range of equations is an error is a lie. End of story.
Either falsify my maths or accept the conclusion. Not lies

>>14591849
Yes, that is correct, they made up lies.

My paper does not contain any error so they are making up lies literally and claiming a range of equations are wrong that is illogical.

>>14591868
You're not doing math, you're doing physics. The math is fine, the physics is wrong. You cannot mash a bunch of equations together without any regard for their physical meaning and claim to have come to a physically meaningful conclusion.

>>14591767
It makes no difference how many people stand behind a stupid excuse, it is still a stupid excuse.

>>14591881
I can evaluate the existing physics prediction using equations and example referenced from my book, sir.

>>14591898
>I can evaluate the existing physics prediction
Not without quantitative data you can't. Going back to >>>14590390, the algebra from [10] to [19] is fine, but you've erroneously made the assumption that the energy increase comes from nothing. This is an entirely conceptual error, because you're mathematically treating a system in a way in which it does not actually behave based on a faulty assumption. That anon demonstrated where the additional energy comes from.

>>14591868
There is such a thing as conceptual error in Science and physics.

Let me give you the most basic example because you seem to be willfully ignorant about it.

Imagine you drop a sheet of paper & a billard ball down a 100 m high tower.
How much time will it take to reach the bottom?
Well, it's simple Newtonian physics; y = y_i + v_i * t + a/2 * t^2 so for a=-9.8, x_i = 100 and v_i = 100 and y=0, we have t=3.19 s.
Both will reach the bottom at the same time after about 3.2 s. The math can't lie! There are no errors in my equations! I challenge you to debunk me!

>>14591917
Again, mathematical physics paper. Either fault the maths by pointing out a single equation and explaining the error within it. Vague hand waving and whining is not scientific

>>14591925
The reason that you are presenting an “ example is because you cannot actually point out an error in my paper. You are literally being straight out dishonest. Sir.

>>14591930
Mathematical physics is not mathematics.
>Vague hand waving and whining is not scientific
Exactly, so let's see your data.

>>14591936
The error was already pointed out. You refuse to acknowledge it, because you prefer lying to yourself rather than face reality.
You pretend there can be no such things as conceptual errors in mathematics. That is true. But you are not doing math; you are doing Physics. Reality does not care about your maths; it just exists. You know your equation is wrong because the answer does not matchup to reality.

>>14591939
Mathematical physics is not mathematics because physicists are too emotionally immature to prevent themselves from telling tall tales.

>>14591943
This will go unaddressed.

>>14591946
Mathematical physics is not mathematics because mathematics is not an empirical science.

Dude's been at this for like six years.

>>14591948
This is unreasonable nonsense. Which equation number does it address?

>>14591957
This is further lying and more proof you are an npc

>>14591939
Right and maths is not maths. Wtf

>>14591943
There is no error pointed out. There is you making up lies about a vague error that you are unable to point out. You are not reasonable.

>>14591668
What is your line 1 describing? An object in constant rotation only has equal tangential velocities, i.e. v1 = v2 for v=r*omega

>>14591957
>This is unreasonable nonsense.
Let's start an appeal to the stone counter for this dude.

>>14591963
You seem to have misread that, mathematical PHYSICS* is not math because math is not empirical while PHYSICS is.

>>14591965
Says the guy unable to look back for a second and remind himself that this >>14590390 and >>14590934 exists because he is so full of himself and autistic

>>14591956
There. Is not time limit on standing up for the truth. The fact that people lose their minds and start blabbering nonsense uncontrollably for years is not my fault

>>14591668
Having issues downloading this.

Can you screenshot or pastebin some of it?

>>14591969
Mathematical physics papers are not anti-empirical you are just making up nonsense to avoid facing the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14591971
You can remind me over and over again how much evasion there exists of my paper. But you still have to face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14591973
You should stick to reddit and twitter, someone on 4chan is going to decide to push you over the edge for the lulz.

>>14591956
If that's true then I don't see how anything posted here will do anything for this guy. Just post a link to the original thread and each fucking time he does it again we can just prove he started this 6 years ago and is still going strong

>>14591978
>Mathematical physics papers are not anti-empirical
Correct, they are beholden to empirical data (of which you have provided none). If your theory or prediction does not line up with reality, it is false.

>>14591975
Try this one on ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356786155_A_flaw_in_the_law_of_conservation_of_angular_momentum

>>14591987
If you agree that the result does not line up with reality then you agree with my conclusion, sir.

>>14591984
Where it started is irrelevant. The fact is that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14591982
I grew up in Hillbrow and my father owned a string of brothels, so these “bad” people are my kind of people. They are going to help me get the message through if anything.

>>14591991
>If you agree that the result does not line up with reality
The only way you can make this assessment is, again, with quantitative data.

>>14591984
I don't know if he's visited /sci/ much before, but there's a couple long ass threads on scienceforums.net and his twitter is basically 20k posts solely about this. twitter.com/Mandlbaur/status/797850413047410688

>>14591994
You are lost. But some new poor sod might take you seriously, thus it will help counter that.

>>14591998
You claimed it does not line up with reality. When it suits you you don’t need quantification but when it is against you you have another standard. Hypocrite

>>14591999
Please stop the ad hominem and face the simple fact. That 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14592006
This is simply absurd and rambly. You are not making sense, take your med schizo

>>14592002
No, sir I have never been lost. I have been defeated by censorship and provocation in battles, but the truth will win the war.

>>14592005
I claimed that if "mathematical physics" in general does not line up with reality then it is false. The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute, and in the case of physics, proof is data.

>>14592008
This is the /sci/ channel right? Not the /idiots/ channel right ??

>>14592010
No, sir, you are overlooking the fact that this is a reductio ad absurdum and so makes its proof by showing that the prediction is stupidly wrong, sir, so if it does not match reality then then the conclusion is proven, sir. Since you acknowledge that the result does not match reality, you agree with the conclusion, sir. Thank you for your support, sir

>>14592017
OMG I can't believe you just assumed my gender, it's MAAM sir, MAAM.

>>14592017
>so if it does not match reality then then the conclusion is proven
You cannot make a statement about reality without measuring it. You cannot claim reality is "absurd" without measuring it. You cannot do science without data.

Look, let's suppose you're right. Every equation which utilizes conservation of angular momentum is incorrect.

But by some miracle propellers, wheels, engine cranks, transmissions, neutron stars, and every other physical system is engineered or explained using this flawed assumption but somehow continues to work.

If that's the case, why worry?

I'm not worried about the theoretical existence of Newton's Dome showing that Newtonian physics is indeterministic. I'm not worried because Newtonian physics is just an approximation and I'm not a scientific realist. I'd happily use Newtonian physics to give my 4th of July fireworks the right trajectory.

>>14591774
Don't care, experimental proof is better than a thousand equations.

>>14591874
>My paper does not contain any error so they are making up lies literally and claiming a range of equations are wrong that is illogical.
You can't reject the refutation just because you believe you didn't make an error. That's illogical.

>>14592017
Reductio ad Absurdum involves the validity of a modus tollens argument in classical logic.

But classical logic is obviously fatally flawed.
For example, this is a valid use of the material conditional in classical logic:
1) If John is in Paris then he is in France and if John is in London then he is in England.
2)Hence it is the case that either, if John is in Paris he is in England, or if John is in London he is in France.
(Proof by contraposition).

If angular momentum is conservation is true, then every experiment will show angular momentum is conserved.
One experiment shows angular momentum is not conserved.
Nothing follows from this because both premises have an indeterminate truth value (truth table of T F and I, see Priest, van Fraasen, and other logicians)

>>14592067
Looks like you made a typo and forgot the "n't" after your "is"

>>14591997
Delusional. At least you left out the grandeur.
How's it feel to be a shih tzu?

>>14592067
So why did you ignore friction in your calculations?

>>14591668
The second law of thermodynamics never made sense intuitively to me as a kid, but I couldn't articulate that it was because the law is really a statistical one. Now we have time crystals
Same with angular momentum it never made intuitive sense.

>1+1=2
>this means ONE dollar + ONE Canadian dollar = TWO million dollars
>I have discovered how to make infinite money
>to prove me wrong, you have to prove 1+1 doesn't equal 2
You're an idiot.

>>14592306
Wat? That's obviously false, because if 1 = 1 then they can't be different things, such as a USD and a Canada Dollar which are not the same
Your premise is right but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise

>>14592320
No. I'm right. To prove I'm wrong you have to point out to an error in the equation 1+1=2. Otherwise, you have to accept that I found a way to make infinite money.

>>14592320
Now how would we call this type of error? I wonder...

Maybe a conceptual error?
No, it can't be, I thought those don't exists...

So you're neglecting the fact that conservation of energy applies to the sum of kinetic and potential energy. When the radius is larger, PE is higher, and when the string shortens, PE is converted to KE hence the higher linear velocity. In total, it takes more energy to set up the system with a higher radius, just less of that energy is actually converted to KE.

>>14591668
>http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf
what is your thesis, op? sum it up. It seems you are saying "if I change the moment of a rotating object, it will have more energy!" the answer is, of course it will, because as you shorten the length of the rope the ball is connected to, you are doing work, and putting energy into the system.

do this,op. Take a ball and tie it to a rope. Spin yourself and the rope around, then try to pull the rope towards you. It will require energy to do so. You have not invented perpetual motion or an over unity engine. You are just neglecting certain forms of work that are being done on the system.

>>14592723
No, sir, I am saying that since the prediction does not match reality, the theory is wrong.

>>14592727
No, sir, I am calculating the work that existing theory predicts is done and a million percent increase in energy is wrong, so the theory is wrong.

>>14592734
>No, sir, I am saying that since the prediction does not match reality, the theory is wrong.
show me where you accounted for the work done on the ball/string while reeling in the rope.

>>14592570
No, sir, I am calculating the increase in energy and showing that existing theory predicts a million percent increase which is obviously wrong, sir, so the theory is wrong, sir.

>>14592324
This is an impersonator

>>14592742
>I am calculating the increase in energy
where are you accounting for the energy it took to reel in the ball?

>>14592306
He is an impersonator,sir

>>14592146
Because my equations are referenced and existing physics ignores friction, sir, so I have to. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to “calculate friction “ for a generic hypothetical example,sir, because we do not have sufficient information to, sir, so you are unreasonable, sir.

>>14592116
No, sir, there is no delusion, sir, it was a tough job, but someone had to do qualify control, sir.

>>14592067
If your argument is that my proof is wrong because logic is flawed, sir, then you are simply stonewalling, sir, stop it. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, sir

>>14592049
Unless , of course the refuting does not point out any discernible error within my paper, sir, then I reject it as the lies it is, sir

>>14591668
Physics is fantasy novel, just when you're not capable of doing anything else you choose to write and read fantasy novels until you retire and hereby after. There is no room in physics for a brain, you need to invent new field that isn't posioned by little grandmas.

>>14592040
Well sir, then you have to accept that my measurements of prof Lewin falsifies COAM, sir, I believe that you are in denial and will not accept any evidence which disagrees with you, sir. The fact is that you have no experimental evidence supporting your beliefs, sir.

>>14591678
Based

>>14592023
Please see rebuttal number 16 for the answer to your appeal to tradition logical fallacy evasion, sir: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14592019
I am not claiming that reality is absurd, sir, I am claiming that 12000 rpm, which is the existing physics prediction, is stupidly obviously and objectively wrong, sir.

>>14592018
No, sir, sir makes no gender assumption, sir, it is merely a term of respect, sir. Please stop using slander and ad hominem to evade the argument, sir?

>>14592324
I'm intrigued.

>>14592780
>which is the existing physics prediction
no. it's not. let me show you what you are doing.

E=1/2mv^2 so lets say you have something going one mile per hour , but then goes 1000mph

Ef/Ei=10^6 look! if you just change the velocity you get energy from nowhere! physics is broken!

>>14592775
You are appealing to the fallacy of invoking informal fallacies.

>>14592787
Please stop presenting argumentumadstupidum, sir?
Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM, sir.

>>14592791
>Grandiose: People with this type of delusional disorder have an overinflated sense of self-worth, power, knowledge or identity. They may believe they have a great talent or have made an important discovery.

>>14591874

>>14592803
Flat earthers neglect the evidence and refuse to acknowledge simple facts placed in front of them, such as the simple fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, sir. Please wake up out of your stupor, sir and face the fact that 12000 rpm directly and undeniably falsifies COAM, sir?

>>14592816
Correct, sir, their false claim of an error which cannot be directly identified is “low quality bait”, sir. Thank you for your support, sir

>>14591960
No, sir, you are simply ignoring the evidence like a flat earther,sir.

>>14591668
angular momentum is SO fucking simple, how did it filter you?

>>14592844
It is very simple, sir. 12000 rpm falsifies COAM, sir.

>>14592846
13000rpm also falsifies it?

>>14592849
Yes, sir, the predictions of theory are objectively wrong, so the theory is wrong, sir. That is the essence of the scientific method, sir. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop being in #denial, sir.

>>14592866
Do you sell merch? 12000rpm tshirts and mugs?

>>14592742
When you invoke conservation of energy, you have to take into consideration your entire system. If you released the string in a vacuum with no gravitational force, the radius of rotation would not contract, but since gravity is in effect, when we release the string, the PE we put into the ball when we lifted it up is converted to KE.
In short, when invoking COE, you should use KE + PE.

>>14592872
No, sir, I am trying to save the world from stupidity and this has cost me at least two thirds of my personal fortune so far sir.

>>14592876
This is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy, sir. Please address my argument instead of evading it, sir. I have calculated the existing prediction which includes the energy you refer to, sir. The result of that is 12000 rpm, which is wrong, so the theory is wrong, sir. Face facts, please, sir?

>>14592881
I was following you up to this
>make merch
>sell for fat wads of cash
>get free marketing for you ideas
>earn back your loses

You can't NOT do this bro.

>>14592898
No, sir, you have never been following me, sir, you are mocking me in evasion of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

what is this? op trying to be the next time cube retard?

>>14592905
Why is it so hard to believe you have supporters?

>engaging the schizo and not milking the lolcow for lulz
This board truly is redshit lite. Sigh.

>>14592923
Because I do not have any support, sir. Support involves actual verbal support and defending me from the attack, sir and not just vague mocking claims of support, sir.
Anytime that has happened though, the peer pressure attack team that is coordinated by the Reddit group of scientists and moderators goes into action and applies severe peer pressure and intimidation to re-convert the person back to the false beliefs again.

>>14592919
No, sir, the op is trying to get the simple fact that 12000 rpm falsified COAM through to all the retards, sir.

>>14592924
Why would you comment if the facts do not disturb you, sir?

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop being evasive and insulting the author, sir. Grow up.

>>14592820
so true!!

>>14591668
good morning sir, you got me interested. I just read your proof and couldn't find a _single_ mathematical error in it.
All of your formulas and calculations are correct!
I can't believe I have been lied to so much.
Can you please tell me more on the subject? I am very intrigued.

>>14592999
Yes you're right. Keep fighting the good fight brother.

>>14593585
Thank you. Finally some intelligent life.
Everything I have on the relatively simple matter is on my web page here, sir: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics

Can I just say I appreciate the level of respect Baur is giving the physicists by addressing them as sir? I admit it's a bit misogynistic, since they could be madams instead, alas the sentiment is a good one. It's sad to see these so called experts unable to show even a modicum of respect to this brave man who is going against the consensus. Science isn't advanced by consensus. It is advanced by new ideas.

>>14593598
You might get some of the grumpy people here to take you more seriously if you attach Pepe the frog memes to your posts. It signals you're one of us! :)

>>14593598
I glanced a bit at your work, but what I am more interested in, is the next step. What are the consequences of the invalidation of angular momentum exactly? What does it invalidate next? Just how big are the impacts of your discovery?

>>14593606
the Drooling Pepe, pls

>>14593608
Well the importance is far reaching, sir, but I can offer my prepared rebuttal number 11 which explains the importance, sir : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

Is all of this because you couldn't get a perpetual motion machine going?

>>14593643
I am intrigued by the moon crash you mentioned in this rebuttal.
I would love to see you make a correction to the traditional orbit path accounting for you discovery that would prevent this sort of crash and present it as a paper. This would be one step further in getting your work recognized by more people!

>>14593649
No, sir, this is because angular momentum is not conserved, sir.

>>14593661
I am not a physicist, sir. I have proven my claim and it is for the physicists to sort out the rest.

>>14593664
But don't you wish to go farther, to explore this new venue of science? Will you really stop at this?

To be honest, I am quite disappointed in you. I thought you were a determined person seeking the truth. I have seen in this thread references to your post going back 5 years ago, I would have thought you would have continued exploring your new theory in the meantime...

>>14593667
Again, sir, I am not a scientist. I have simply proven my discovery because that is my obligation and that is as far as I wish to go. If that disappoints you, tough. I don’t care, sir.

>>14593678
You don't need to be a scientist. Stop putting arbitrary barriers between you and your passion!
You can do it! Just 5 years ago, you typed up this proof! Believe in yourself!

There is nothing stopping you from pursuing your research! The great mathematicians of old didn't need any fancy degrees or title to do math, science or astronomy, they just reflected, used logic and worked out the math, like you did!

From what I have read from this thread, people are not persuaded because this proof lacks concrete application. Als far as we know, all of the flywheels, gyroscopes and stabilizers still work with our incorrect understanding of physics, so how can they be wrong?
This is where YOU enter! You talked about a crash on the moon; if you can demonstrate how a proper understanding of angular momentum would prevent that, and demonstrate an orbital correction, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone objecting near as much to your proof, since you have given observable, useful facts!

sirs, please kindly to reading my new scientific theory. I found energy is invalid theory.

E=1/2mv^2

A 1kg ball is rolling at 1mph

Ei=1/2

then the ball eventually comes to a halt as it slows down

E=0

the energy has disappeared sirs! where has the energy gone? I have disproved all physics!

>>14593714
He did it guys!
Where is your paper kind sir!

>>14593692
Please stop evading the fact that COAM is falsified by trying to shift the burden of proof back upon me, sir. The reason people are not persuaded is because they are literally insane in #denial.

>>14593714
Argumentum ad stupidum is bad science.

>>14593744
Why are you becoming aggressive with me? I have done nothing but respect your work and encourage you do pursue your passion, since it's obviously your passion, if it wasn't you wouldn't have spent at least 5 years spreading it.

I feel hurt by this reply.

>>14593744
Like a real scientist you should use your predictions to make an experiment right?
No, because that would falsify your shit maths.

>>14593752
I am not aggressive, sir, please stop the ad hominem?

>>14593753
I am not sufficiently arrogant or ignorant or stupid to be a scientist, sir.

>>14593753
I can produce as much experimental evidence as I like and it is neglected like my absolute proof in my papers is neglected, sir.

>>14593767
You are accusing me of evasion and totally misinterpreting what I am saying, reacting defensively.

>>14593767
>>14593770
Sir, I think you need to show more respect to your fellow scientists. Please, sir. Some decorum.

>>14593770
I think you're sufficiently stupid to be anything you want to be

>>14593744
This is an imposter.

>>14593779
Yes, sir, you do, but that is simply because you are in #denial of my discovery and personally attacking me because you can’t defeat my paper, sir. If you were worthy of your degree, you would have long measured a ball on a string and confirmed that it conserves angular energy instead of this evasive insulting tirade, sir.

>>14593782
No, it is not. And you are so childish and insane about the fact that you cannot defeat me that you have to impersonate me. Since when is impersonation part of the scientific method, sir?

>>14591668
>Experimental prototypes for an invention I was working on disagreed with my predictions so I
dusted off my thirty year old, first year university, physics text book and re-investigated my
formulae.
Shame this isn't elaborated on. Would've been fun to know what he was trying to build and what he was predicting it to do

>>14593791
Sir, please stop impersonating me. I have not rebuked the scientists here as harshly as you pretend to, sir. My paper proves, incontrovertibly that COAM is false. Please show some respect, sir.

>>14593795
This is not about fun nor about my confidential professional research and development.

This is about the fact that angular momentum is not conserved.

Don’t you think that three hundred years of physics being overturned is interesting enough, sir?

>>14593795
I have built an energy amplification device, sir.

>>14593798
What are you trying to achieve here moron?

Requesting OP to perform experiment.

>>14593807
Please do not insult me, sir. You do nothing to help your case for COAM.

>>14593803
Good for you. I told you to email me the details and I will look at it

>>14593812
I am afraid to email you, good sir. I fear I may dox myself.

>>14593747
pleasing to be excusing me sirs, but can you show where I made a maths errors?

>>14593809
Sir, the math should speak for itself. Doing an experiment would be useless since they won't be persuaded by it because they are #insane. If you can't show a math error in my paper, sir, then it is right.

>>14593827
I'm sorry but upon exhaustive review it appears you are using linear time. You see there are 4 days in a linear 24 hour earth day, because time is cubic. It's like the sides of a pyramid. I am the wisest mind!

Sir, I recommend using a "tripcode" to defeat imposters.

>>14593827
This is an impersonator

OP is getting a aroused by his clones being called sir.

>>14593838
>>14593798
>>14593782
Sir, it is highly frustrating that you always lie and pretend that I am an impersonator. Stop your ad-hominem and acknowledge the simple fact that 12 000 RPM falsifies COAM.

I do not understand the need to impersonate me just because my argument cannot be defeated. It is not reasonable and does not provide any benefits. What the fuck is it about ???

>>14593851
Sir I do not understand why you are doing this. I have proven COAM incorrect. Provide evidence it is correct or go away. I will alert your bad behavior to the CIA.

>>14593888
Sir, how many times do I have to repeat myself, please stop impersonating me.

>>14591817
>This is maths
Okay, then retard. Errors in math don't occur "within equations". (Notice that a correct proof can contain an equation or claim that is false. For example, this is common in proof by contradiction.) Errors occur in proofs when a claim isn't justified by an assumption or a previous claim. There is not even an attempt at justification in your "maths". In other words, it's all error from start to finish.

>>14593951
Kek janny got offended and deleted it

>>14593888
>COAM

I have proven kinetic energy to be wrong. Address that kindly, sir.

>>14591753

My penis acheives 12000rpm inside your mother.

>>14593837
test

>>14594496
smee

>>14594320
No, sir, not until you address my proof that COAM is false.
#doublestandards is bad science.

>>14591966
Equation 1 is the premiss of the reductio ad absurdum which is essentially the “law” of conservation of angular momentum.
It cannot be reasonably attacked because that is agreeing with the conclusion, sir

>>14592740
Equation 19, sir.

>>14592746
Equation 19, sir.

>>14592772
Not based. Moronic. Neglecting the evidence is the behavior of a #flatearther.

>>14592784
Of course it is the existing physics prediction, sir. I have taken the equations from physics for the classic example from physics and evaluated them and the result is 12000 rpm, sir. That is wrong, so the theory is wrong. Not difficult, sir.

>>14593604
Incorrect, sir. There is no misogyny, sir. Sir is a term of respect and does is not restricted by gender, sir.

>>14593692
Also google orbital prediction error to find out that there are literally thousands of physics papers showing that our orbital mechanics is incompetent, sir. So your appeal to past success logical fallacy is even itself falsified by the facts, sir.

>>14593814
Well then message me privately using another r method then. Sir

>>14593836
You are an idiot presenting #argumentumadstupidum

>>14591668
Conclusion
>The existing paradigm makes predictions which contradict reality.
how
>Clearly there is a mistake somewhere.
where
>Since reality is the truth which physics is attempting to model, the mistake must lie in the physics.
okay
>The physical assumptions made for the ball on a string demonstration are sensible and have been generally agreed upon by scientists for centuries so the problem must reside within the
mathematics.
uuuh ok
>This paper contains no mathematical errors therefore the source of the error must be contained within the referenced equations.
which paper
>The only mathematical assumption that has been made in formulating these equations is the
assumption that angular momentum is conserved.
how
>Because there is no scientifically verified empirical evidence confirming that angular momentum is conserved in a variable radii system, it remains an hypothesis and we can correctly refer to this as assumption.
>The assumption must be false.
why assumption must be false
Since the laws of physics are universal, that which applies to a ball on a string also applies to all other orbits.
inductive method? prove it.
>The law of conservation of angular momentum is fallacy.
no experiment = no proof = no conclusion

>>14595979
Do you imagine that a ball on a string does do 12000 rpm in reality?
Or a extended one from 1m does achieve a million percent increase in energy?

>>14595979
Rebuttal 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14591955
This is pedantic semantic uncommunicative childish nonsense, sir.

>>14593595
Thank you for the support. Can you perhaps offer some thoughts as to how to get through to the agro deniers?

>>14591668
bro how fucking delusional are you
i see you on reddit, twitter, /b/, /sci/, just shut the fuck up and learn physics and fuck off

>>14597210
I am only as delusional as the next guy, sir.
No, I refuse to learn physics, it is the make of satan, sir.

>>14591668
i swear this dude literally has brain damage

>>14593598
>intelligent life
clearly you need to also retake a high school english class to learn proper definitions

Now this is peak /sci/ (autism)

>>14597231
In one of these multiple threads, he did infer that much about his diagnosis.
Even so, it never came as a surprise to anybody.

>>14597222
Impersonator again.

>>14597210
Ii have only to teach what I have discovered, sir. You being in denial and personally insulting me is unscientific behavior, sir.

>>14597231
This is plain personal insult. Sir. That is uncommunicative and ad hominem, sir. Show us 12000 rpm, or accept that COAM if false, sir.

>>14597240
No, sir, you need to address my paper instead of making up fake insults, sir.

>>14597273
Stop personally insulting me in evasion of the fact that you cannot defeat my paper, sir. Accept the truth that is proven, sir. Wtf??

>as we reduce the radius, the circumference is also reduced which means that the ball has less distance to travel in a single revolution and therefore does it more quickly.
It does more turns per the same unit of time because the kinetic energy for the rotation remains, yes. How does "modern science" explain this differently? Your '12000 rpm ball an string' thing is a joke.

>>14598177
No, sir, no joke. That is the prediction of the “law” of conservation of angular momentum, sir. It is objectively wrong, sir.

>>14597231
Car accident when he was 8, apparently.

op are you a virgin

>>14598651
No, sir, I used to do quality control in a brothel sir. Please fact the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and sto desperately grasping at straws, sir.

>>14593837
No

What do you want, exactly

>>14598653
I ask because my dick only went 12 rpm in your mom. This violates your falsification of COAM, because after my 12 rpm fucking I COAM'd in your mom.