/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14631023
also how come no one has even tried to get 12000 rpm experimentally if that's what coam predicts? Is it because they know that they will fail?

>>14631023
Just another run-of-the-mill schizo really. His conveniently selective understanding and application of the scientific method make it essentially impossible to engage with him in a productive manner. The burden of proof will always lie with him and he will never provide any data, so it's a waste of time.

>>14631041
>will never provide any data
https://youtu.be/lkRsmjV1mfE?t=103
what do you call that you dishonest fuck?

>>14631052
Certainly not data. "Hand waving" or "weasel words" perhaps?

>>14631080
do you think the ball was rotating at 12000 rpm? Because it wasn't. That's data.

>>14631052
has mandlbaur really aged 20 years in the past 6 years?

>>14631052
meds

>>14631082
No, that's a statement. He didn't even create a repeatable setup, let alone measure anything.

>>14631096
you take yours first
>>14631109
it's entirely repeatable, all you need is a rope and a ball
He measured that it was less than 12000 rpm. You're being dishonest.

>>14631115
Spin up a ball on a string as fast as you can and then let it move freely for a bit and see what happens. It will lose almost all of its speed in a few seconds just like shown in the video you posted because it doesn't conserve momentum or energy or angular momentum. You dumb fuck

>>14631141
no it will fly until it hits the ground or a wall
why dont you do it?

sirs you are being #unscientific

I desperately want a sneed edit of John. Someone do this please!!

>>14631023
>>14631031
>>14631052
>>14631082
>>14631115
>>14631164
>>14631395
John out here pretending he is multiple people to fake interest in what he is saying.
Or someone baiting John for fun.
Both possibilities are pretty funny.

>>14631451
John does post on /sci/, though. I asked him on Twitter. That Walter Lewin post was his.

>>14631467
He has been spamming many threads about the same thing for some days so I guess he didn't just suddenly stop. Just made it a little bit less obvious who he is.

>>14631479
This thread wasn't posted by him, I asked him on Twitter.
I want him to become our Terry Davis.

>>14631534
I feel like Terry was at the very least an intelligent schizo. Can't say the same about John.

>>14631052
So where's you accounting for the masses and conservation of energy involved?

Oh look someone in your youtube comments also explained that to you. Hmmmmm....

What part of "If all else is held constant" are you not getting?

>>14631786
Nothing is held constant since COAM is false. COAM predicts 120000 rpm, sir. This is completely ridiculous, and the law doesn't hold up when tested by experiment.

>>14632490
I bet you don't even know what the law states.

>>14632490
>Nothing is held constant since COAM is false.
This is your problem. Every equation has necessary resting assumptions describing how and why the equation applies, or "when". You are deliberately ignoring the necessary conditions to falsely dismiss the theory to feel smart. What you are doing is no different from declaring ALL mathematics wrong because it doesn't take into account literally everything. Newsflash my friend: All models are necessarily summations because a map is not a useful map if it has to be as large as what it maps. Try using a map with a 1:1 size ratio sometime. That is what you are doing here.

What you are doing is no different from what flat earthers do rejecting geometric evidence and measurements the Earth is round. You are denying the facts, the proper description of these relationships, to preserve a lie you've told yourself. This is no different from sunk cost fallacy, just applied to your own ego. You've convinced yourself you can't be this stupid, so everyone else has to be wrong instead.

So which would you rather do? Live life until you die being an example in some footnote of history of someone evidencing total disregard for EVERYONE trying to help him, or pull your head out your ass? Because "The historic example of a moron" is going to hurt you a lot more than admitting you fucked up.

>>14632490
>COAM predicts 120000 rpm, sir.
Also, as your equations fail to account for the masses and energy you put into the system, as well as energy taken out of that system in transference of that energy and so on, you are the one at fault here. Again. Using a model wrong is not a fault of the model, it is user error. You, again, are the error.

>>14631786
L = r x p, idiot. If the radius changes the either p (energy) must change or L must change b because they are on opposite sides of the equation you delusional fucking engineer. Asshole.

>>14631031
Rebuttal 1 asshole. The burden of proof is fulfilled. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

John pulled the most elaborate ploy ever for bitches to check out his motorcycle. It's u all. U the bitchez.

Long live King John

>>14631080
Your “data” is “it spins faster” you fucking ignorant moron.

>>14631109
I measured prof Lewin you deluded idiot.

>>14632938

You're gay

>>14631141
So you argue literally that the centuries old classic demonstration which was probably invented by Newton himself is all of a sudden not an example of COAM. You fucking shifting the goalposts idiotic weasel.

>>14632973

Why do you argue with King John? The Crusade is coming. We make the "facts" now. We will make you agree to nonsense or else be disembowled. We call that poetry.

John will take all South Africa in the aftermath. John, how much faaaat ass will you fuck as Lord? Please impregnate enough to make that faggot Gingus bow from his crypt in shame. Or not. You are King now. Do as you please.

>>14632974
Fuck you. I am John, asshole.

>>14632956
>L = r x p, idiot. If the radius changes the either p (energy) must change or L must change b because they are on opposite sides of the equation you delusional fucking engineer.
Stop tapdancing. First you complain that you don't see those results in reality, now you complain I am factoring in reality and ignoring the equation. You don't get it both ways. Gotcha bitch.

>>14632987
>Fuck you. I am John, asshole.

THE John Mandlbaur? My apologies my Lord. Forgive me.

>>14632990
I am not a lord or king, I am just a human who has discovered something that people have a hard time accepting.

>>14632992

You humble yourself, Sir.

>>14632992
>I am just a human who has discovered something that people have a hard time accepting.
That tends to happen when you're full of shit and play bait-and-switch whenever someone catches you. Too bad for you, I caught your trick.

>>14632994
>That tends to happen when you're full of shit and play bait-and-switch whenever someone catches you. Too bad for you, I caught your trick.

Homo

John you are more fun on Reddit

>>14632997
Thanks for proving my point. Stop trolling people with this. You suck at it.

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT

>>14632994
If you think that you “caught my trick” then you are either delusional or have been arguing with one of the psychopaths who is impersonating me. I have presented my discovery and defended it successfully against every single attack.

>>14632999
I am not prepared to waste my time on a forum that the moderator bans me from every time I win an argument.

>>14633012
see >>14632938

Either you accept you are ignoring reality dishonestly, or you accept you are factoring in reality dishonestly. Either way you lose. As do all your "impersonators". It all relies on the same trick.

>>14633016
I am the one accepting that reality does not do 12000 rpm. Delusional idiot.

>>14633015
>I am not prepared to waste my time on a forum that the moderator bans me from every time I win an argument.

Then we will continue to stalk, harass and manipulate you for every day of your life. I used to torture animals when I was a kid John. But now you are the animal.

>>14633018
Only because you are ignoring the equation, or ignoring the fact the map is not the territory. Doesn't matter which. You've been caught. see >>14632938

>>14633019
You do that anyway asshole. You think
You can intimidate me. Dickhead. FUCK YOU.

We made you into this John. You were just a guy who wanted to know about science. But it's more fun to torture you. It's fun. We have a body count here on 4chan. Terry. Mario. We make people kill themselves. It's fun.

>>14633019
Kinda cringe man
>>14633024
Christ I'd be embarrassed to be you right now.

>>14633020
That is delusional bullshit. The equation is COAM. If the theory is right it must match reality. If it does not match reality then the theory is wrong. That is the scientific method.

>>14633030
>The equation is COAM
see >>14632938
>This is your problem. Every equation has necessary resting assumptions describing how and why the equation applies, or "when". You are deliberately ignoring the necessary conditions to falsely dismiss the theory to feel smart. What you are doing is no different from declaring ALL mathematics wrong because it doesn't take into account literally everything. Newsflash my friend: All models are necessarily summations because a map is not a useful map if it has to be as large as what it maps. Try using a map with a 1:1 size ratio sometime. That is what you are doing here.

>>14633034
The equation is COAM and the reason it contradicts reality is because the theory is wrong. You making unreasonable excuses is #unscientific.

>>14631052
I call this ridiculous as fuck. Thank you for making my day

>>14633040
>The equation is COAM and the reason it contradicts reality is because the theory is wrong.
The map is not the territory. Your pretending to not understand this does not make maps wrong. It makes you dishonest.

Fuck the haters JM.

>>14633042
You are dishonest talking about fucking maps you ignorant cunt.

>>14633003
>>14633019
>>14633024

You need to chill the fuck out what the fuck

>>14633046
Thanks, but the problem is that the haters are the professors and PhDs, so I have to get through to them before this can be fixed. Sucks, but that’s the fact.

>>14633047
>You are dishonest talking about fucking maps you ignorant cunt.
You just prove how dishonest you are by tapdancing between two bait and switch positions. No model seeks to model everything in reality, and your refusal to acknowledge this proves my point about your position being total dishonesty. You are doing this for attention and nothing more.

>>14633055

When does it become justifiable self defense to. You know? Their trying to make you kill yourself. Is it okay to kill them first?

>>14633061

I honestly dont no. Im just fascinated. Is it self defense to kill someone who is trying to make you kill yoirself?

>>14633062
...No. I seriously want to joke and say "Go try and find out" but some of you fucks are possibly actually that stupid.

Is it true they made Mario kill himself? Would it have been okay if Mario killed them instead? Even the 4chan banner is a noose like what the fuck?

>>14632973
Then explain why the ball loses speed as it spins

>>14633069
Due to factors not in the model, because the model is not about those factors. You're asking why a map of hawaii doesn't explain how to get to kentucky.

>>14633059
I have never expected a perfect result moron. 12000 rpm is absurd, so the theory is wrong. Excuses are unscientific. Stop making excuses and stop insulting me just because you fail to defeat my paper. Asshole.

They are not listening to threats of persecution and are joking about it like what the fuck? When does harassment become self defense I don't know

>>14631093
It's not easy trying to get your physics breakthrough out to the masses

>>14633070
I am not mandlbaur, i am trying to explain to him that there is no reason to expect a ball on a string to conserve angular momentum because air resistance dominates

>>14633072
>I have never expected a perfect result moron.
Yet you reject all mention of factoring in other things in reality to account for loss of energy.
>12000 rpm is absurd, so the theory is wrong.
You did your calculations wrong. This has been explained to you. You continue to ignore the explanation.

>>14631589
John seems like he desperately wants to believe he's invented a machine that produces free energy, so he's hanging onto this 12000 rpm thing, even if deep down he doesn't even believe it. Or then he's having a psychotic episode, in which case it's more sad and he should find help somehow. Of course the issue is that when you're in psychosis, you don't realize it and things seem totally normal, so they won't seek help

I don't know fucking shit otherhan fuck plebbit

>>14633083
>Or then he's having a psychotic episode
It's been going on for years. That's not an episode anymore

>>14633079
My equations are referenced idiot. You literally argue that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong. Asshole.

>>14633083
I don't know. I've never heard of psychosis nigh perfectly mirroring pure narcissism. I think a lot of people too charitably attribute flat earthers and things like this to psychotic breaks, when average or sub-average intelligence and narcissism explains it far better. Since a narcissist CAN'T be wrong, that explains why he completely ignores the correction and engages in dishonesty.
>>14633091
You've had it explained to you. You calculated things wrong.

>>14633083
12000 rpm is wrong idiot. I don’t believe it. It falsified COAM.

>>14633093
No, excuses are not “explained” moron. Excuses are evading.

>>14633097
Your fuckup doubling angular momentum by multiplying it by itself is not an excuse. It means you fucked up.

John, is this your slave?

>>14633093
>I don't know. I've never heard of psychosis nigh perfectly mirroring pure narcissism. I think a lot of people too charitably attribute flat earthers and things like this to psychotic breaks, when average or sub-average intelligence and narcissism explains it far better. Since a narcissist CAN'T be wrong, that explains why he completely ignores the correction and engages in dishonesty.

I have spent years chasing John across the internet trying to get him to realize that he is an inferior piece of human shit. I spend hours one day telling John to neck himself. Nothing will get him to realize what a subhuman he is, so good luck. We'll keep trying though. It's great comedy. You should join us at r/Mandlbaur. He can only watch the fun we have there since we banned him for being a loser.

>>14633099
You fucked up asshole. You mist be an engineer. Rebuttal 8 : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Mandlbaur/publication/357302312_Rebuttals/links/61c582ade669ee0f5c5e41a6/Rebuttals.pdf?origin=publication_detail

>>14633107
>You should join us at r/Mandlbaur
My interest in cases like these is not your interest, which I consider psychotic. Sneer clubs and the like, even against people like John, further fuel the need for narcissism to maintain the delusions of the narcissist. It is throwing gasoline on the fire, both for the darkness people in these groups tend to have "just looking for lolcows" as well as the problems the people you terrorize have.

Shame on you. No, I won't join your hate club.

>>14633100
No, that is me and my Ducati.

>>14633109
>You fucked up asshole. You mist be an engineer. Rebuttal 8 : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Mandlbaur/publication/357302312_Rebuttals/links/61c582ade669ee0f5c5e41a6/Rebuttals.pdf?origin=publication_detail
I did the calculations myself as I showed in two threads. Going to claim neither were you now? You fucked up. It isn't "200 rps". This has been explained to you, your "rebuttal" just re-asserts your same mistake. Repeating yourself is not a rebuttal.

I did the whole thing step by step. If you can supposedly do it, you should have no issue at all repeating my steps. Only this time, without factoring angular momentum into angular momentum to multiply the effect.

>>14633107
Why don’t you measure a ball on a string instead and then concede you psychotic asshole.

>>14633113
In the back. The guy with the trash bag. Also, who filmed this?

>>14633116
If you got a different answer than 12000 rpm then you fucked up idiot.

>>14633125
My employee at the time. What is it to you?

>>14633128
I want to know what it's like to have servants

>>14633110

Masterbate just once after finding out that of these subhuman crackpots necked themself and you'll change your tune. Nothing beats the release. Taste the semen after. It's so sweet. Like honey

>>14633128
Not a good look

When you have a PHD no one expects the stain on your pants to be LolMilk. Creamed milk maybe. But not cum. I was bricked the entire day when I heard about Terry. Could barely hide it. Trust me you should try it.

>>14633126
>If you got a different answer than 12000 rpm then you fucked up idiot.
Two things. 1. "This law is analogous to linear momentum being conserved when the external force on a system is zero. must increase to keep the angular momentum constant."
Is the external force on your experiment zero?
2. From your book citation, page 195, "initial angular momentum = final angular momentum". The fact this is not the case in your equations proves you did them wrong.

It's nothing personal John. I do not have any children. There is something in the animal brain that registers when more resources become available. That feeling can be harnassed. It's ecstacy.

>>14633140
I own a company so am I not allowed to employ people now or what ???

Fuck I'm drunk and have said too much. Got to go for now John.

>>14633145
So your argument is literally that the centuries old mainstream established demonstration of COAM is not supposed to conserve angular momentum. What kind of stupid moron are you?

>>14633152
>So your argument is literally that the centuries old mainstream established demonstration of COAM is not supposed to conserve angular momentum. What kind of stupid moron are you?
>From your book citation, page 195, "initial angular momentum = final angular momentum"
This does not happen in your equations. You did them wrong.

Feel free to do them start to finish like I did for you, and reproduce this magical 100 fold increase you should not get.

Fuck why cannot you be on Cali time Johnny boy. Too late for this date. You should cum and visit me in the sunshine state sometime johnjohn I'll show you around my home. Just don't judge. And don't act like your boy Trump hasn't also tasted his cum.

>>14633158
You are an idiot. If angular momentum is conserved then the velocity increases 10 fold. The radius reduced to 10% so the angular velocity increases 10 * 10 = 100 you fuckwit

>>14633164

You'll chill out if you try some cum john.. that's the secret

>>14633164
Velocity increases. Not angular momentum. You're doing the equations wrong. This has been explained to you. It's also explained in the book. Read your own citation.

>>14633166
Fuck you faggot

>>14633169
>Fuck you faggot

See this is why we banned you from reddit John. Just try a little bit

>>14633168
You idiot. My calculations conserve angular momentum. That is how a reductio ad absurdum works. Now fuck off with your delusional bullshit.

>>14633170
I never used bad language on Reddit moron. You banned me because you can’t face facts.

>>14633171
>You idiot. My calculations conserve angular momentum.
No, actually, they do not. Why? Because when you're calculating the kinetic energy you show an increase that DOES NOT conserve the energy in the system. Meaning how you're calculating it IS NOT conserving angular momentum because IF IT WAS the energy would be conserved.

Thanks for playing, but you crashed and burned right there.

>>14633174
You understand that L = r x p, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkRsmjV1mfE
So he spins the rope and at the end the ball almost stands still. Where does the rotational energy go?

>>14633173
>I never used bad language on Reddit moron. You banned me because you can’t face facts.

I got you banned because when you get like this it gets me hard John. I'm being honest with you

>>14633178
>You understand that L = r x p, right?
Conservation of energy john. Why did you calculate a million percent increase in energy if you conserved angular momentum properly?

>>14633180
You are a fucking psychotic moron who is being creepy. Fuck off.

>>14633182
Do you understand that L = r x p? Yes or no dipshit.

>>14633189
Stop deflecting John. Why did you calculate a million percent energy when energy is conserved? Which did you fuck up? Angular momentum or conservation of energy? Pick one. You fucked up one of them, so which do you think you fuck up?

>>14631041
>he's blasphemus.

Ok disciple of Science. Go jack off over Japanese cartoons fagggggggggot.

>>14633192
Because conservation of angular momentum contradicts conservation of energy which is tha point I make moron.

>>14633200
>Because conservation of angular momentum contradicts conservation of energy which is tha point I make moron.
Except nowhere in your cited physics book is this done. In fact, it is shown in said book stepping through equations that energy is also conserved.

So did you do it wrong, or did every physicist ever do the math wrong? Everyone? Everyone but you from the start of time of this equation did their own equations wrong?

>>14633201
The million percent comes from evaluating the equations in the book asshole, so my book says that exactly. Dimwit.

>>14633208
>The million percent comes from evaluating the equations in the book asshole, so my book says that exactly. Dimwit.
Which you do wrong because the same equations in the book constantly demonstrate energy conservation with angular momentum. You're not answering my questions, John, you're dodging them.

>>14633211
No, conservation of angular momentum is mathematically impossible if momentum is conserved because L = r x p, so it is mathematically impossible to conserve both momentum and angular momentum when the radius changes. Is this difficult??!

>>14633217
>No, conservation of angular momentum is mathematically impossible if momentum is conserved because L = r x p, so it is mathematically impossible to conserve both momentum and angular momentum when the radius changes. Is this difficult??!
Repeating your mistake by ignoring energy is not "correcting" me. You're just stomping your foot like a child.

I ask again: How is it every single physicist worldwide since adoption of these equations, necessary for construction and everything else, getting this wrong? How are buildings not toppling over? Planes falling from the sky? Engines exploding?

It's really quite simple. Your understanding is wrong, your book explains how it is wrong, and you refuse to listen to explanations of why you're wrong. Because you can't admit that you're wrong.

>>14633217
https://imgur.com/a/1YbDlW8

Someone also went through the even lengthier process of explaining why your understanding on this is incorrect. Because you are ignoring the fact the vector of force is parallel to rotation. That is why you get absurd energy-defying calculations, and as I noted before you used the wrong equation.

>>14633227
Because engineers do not conserve angular momentum. They conserve angular energy and imagine that angular momentum is conserved even though they directly contradict physics. Are you a bit slow?

>>14633235
>They conserve angular energy and imagine that angular momentum is conserved
You have to calculate angular momentum to know angular energy. And your excuse for how nobody has noticed this discrepancy is...?

>>14633241
Bullshit. You have to increase the energy when you reduce the radius of angular momentum is conserved. That is what COAM means.

>>14633241
The reason nobody has noticed is exactly because of your animosity. Anyone who points it out is personally attacked. Like I am being attacked. I don’t back down when I am right. No
Matter how badly you ignorant fucks insult me.

>>14633248
>Bullshit. You have to increase the energy when you reduce the radius of angular momentum is conserved. That is what COAM means.
[math]E_rotational = \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2[/math] requires knowing angular velocity and moment of inertia. Moment of inertia is [math]I=\frac{L}{\omega}[/math].

Even you can't lie about being wrong about that now. Congrats. Moment of inertia is angular momentum divided by its angular velocity. You have to know angular momentum to calculate rotational energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

>>14633259
>The reason nobody has noticed is exactly because of your animosity. Anyone who points it out is personally attacked.
No, it's because if it worked like you mistakenly think it did the rotational energy would exceed the calculations by "a million percent" and everything would blow up. Because you calculate rotational energy with angular momentum via moment of inertia.

QED

>>14633268
Fuck off with your delusional bullshit asshole. My maths is right until you Pinot out an error in it fuckwit.

>>14633281
Fuck off dimwit. You think you can just spout a bunch of bullshit and it means anything. You fucking idiot. Point out an error in my maths or accept the conclusion you time wasting faggot.

>>14633292
>Fuck off with your delusional bullshit asshole. My maths is right until you Pinot out an error in it fuckwit.
>Point out an error in my maths or accept the conclusion you time wasting faggot.
See >>14633268
You did not know rotational energy is calculated with moment of inertia, which requires you know angular momentum. That is a maths mistake.

>>14633297
Fuck off asshole. Have you figured out that W= v/r idiot.

>>14633305
Moving the goalpost John. You wanted an error in maths, you admitted you did not know angular momentum was required for moment of inertia and thus rotational energy. You made a mistake. Admit it.

>>14633308
I did not admit your idiotic bullshit asshole. You make up nonsensical fantasy. You do not have fucking clue what you are talking about and are just posting bunches of equations but you don’t know what they mean. What could possibly inspire you to act like such an idiot?

>>14633313
>What could possibly inspire you to act like such an idiot?
Because catching people like you in corners is fun ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>You make up nonsensical fantasy.
Your words >>14633235
>Because engineers do not conserve angular momentum. They conserve angular energy
>>14633248
>Bullshit. You have to increase the energy when you reduce the radius of angular momentum is conserved. That is what COAM means.

And what did you call bullshit?
>>14633241
>You have to calculate angular momentum to know angular energy.

Gotcha.

>>14633317
If you knew what a fucking corner was then it would make sense but all you have done is show how fucking stupid you are.

>>14633319
John, remember just above where you claim people can only insult you?
What are you doing right now?

Because a normal person can go "Oh shit I fucked up". You can't.

>>14633362
I am the first to admit when I fuck up.

>>14633385
And yet you're allergic to it when you obviously fucked up by denying angular momentum is required to calculate angular energy >>14633317 while being unable to say "Oh, well, guess I fucked up".

>>14633388
I have not fucked up on that. You are just making up delusional bullshit.

>>14633394
What I wrote: "You have to calculate angular momentum to know angular energy."
>>14633248
>Bullshit
So what did I "make up" exactly?

>>14633400
You make up what you have just said and what you make up does not show me wrong. Duh.

>>14633413
>You make up what you have just said
Where I quote your own words.
>what you make up does not show me wrong.
Your own words where you deny angular momentum is required in the calculation.

>>14633421
No, where you imagine that there is anything wrong with what I said.

>>14633425
I posted the equation. You were wrong. No imagination.

>>14633427
You post an irrelevant equation and that can never make me wrong moron.

>>14633430
>You post an irrelevant equation
You can't calculate rotational energy without moment of inertia. It is not irrelevant.

>>14631031
>On 28 August 2013, scientists at the University of St Andrews (UK) published results of their research, which created the fastest rotating manmade object to date. The team created a tiny sphere of calcium just 4 micrometres across, around 10 times narrower than a human hair. Suspending the sphere with laser light inside a vacuum, they made the sphere spin by altering the polarity of the light. The calcium sphere reached 600 million revolutions per minute (RPM) before it disintegrated.

So if we did the ball on a string experiment in space, it would go to 12,000 rpm?

I like having mandlbabe here on /sci/. Truly, this e faggot needs to fuck off back to redshit and kill himself. Probably the same obnoxious piece of shit in the climate threads. Literal stain on this board.

>>14633475
No. It will do 1200 rpm just like on earth because the laws of physics are universal.

>>14633434
Of course it is irrelevant. Which equation does it falsify in my paper moron.

I just want to cuddle with him and whisper into his ear that I love him so much and that I believe him, bros

I want to DP a girl with Mandlbabe. Our balls can accidentally smash together as we are both too shy to pull out. The only thing gayer than accidentally touching balls during a threesome is pulling out of a girl. Mandlbabe you can even have the front. I'll take the back.

Wow, John is so homophobic for no reason. Maybe he's just insecure because he himself is in the homo closet hiding from the world terrified of the possibility that someone might find out he wanks to gay porn.

>>14633690
He justifies his wanking to gay porn by saying there's a girl in it. Five guys? No problem. Most of the porno is dudes stroking their dick? No problem. He loves watching women get fucked at any price. Right Johnny?

>>14633694
Fuck you, you slanderous insulting speculative asshole.
What the fuck has this got to do with the discovery of the fact that angular momentum is not conserved?

>>14633690
I am not homophobic. I am homodisgusted.

>>14633963
It's okay to be gay, John. No need to hide it. You can come out of the closet and touch balls with another man if you want. It's not a crime.
Hiding your true feeling behind homophobia is a very common tactic for people who feel ashamed for who they truly are. Let it go.

>>14633958
When a dude is cumming in your ass, do you also shout "IM COAMING!!"? I bet you do, you little horn dog.

>>14633978
What kind of mentality behaves like this?

>>14633988
Oh right, sorry. You falsified COAM. You should "I'm not COAMING yet, try harder Mr COAM."

>>14633974
Is it okay to neglect a historical discovery by personally insulting and harassing the messenger in a disgusting manner.

>>14633994
Please stop this childish harassment?

>>14631093
No. I am an old man. 55 years old.

>>14631164
They won’t do it because they are literally afraid.

>>14634019
John, in your video you showed that it's not 12000rpm, right?

>>14631451
There are literally psychotic nutcases following me around and impersonating me and trying to make me look foolish because they cannot defeat my papers.

>>14631479
No true. I have personally made about four posts and the impersonators who try to insult me by acting stupid, have made at least as many.

I apologize for my lack of decorum everyone. This has been a learning experience for me. I still believe I have falsified COAM, but you've all made me realize how I yearn to have my prostate stimulated.

>>14634088
This is an imposter. I do not understand the insane behavior. I literally think that it is one of the professors I have defeated in debate and who is so obsessed with me that impersonating me seems a reasonable idea.

>>14634106
I do not understand why this person is trying to exonerate me of my admission. Do not listen to him. He is an imposter. I am the one, true and honest, John Mandlbaur.

>>14634106
Please cum all over my skinny body John
I want to be yours forever

>>14634111
trips of truth

>>14634111
Fuck off you faggot creep.
Is this reasonable behavior just because you are incapable of defeating my maths. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14634206
Fuck you you maggot.

>>14634206
This is an imposter and you insult me if you support him.

>>14634220
on god you're the imposter fr no cap
boy lemme tell you you aint bussin for shit lol pretendinng to be somebody else lol

>>14634222
No. The person on here using my real name as a username is an imposter.

>>14634215
Johnny Mandlbabe, please calm down. Think of your blood pressure. Your doctor would advise you to take some yoga classes. May i recommend downward dog?

>>14634222
That is literally criminal behavior and nasty. All I did was present what I have discovered and this guy starts pretending to be me and saying idiotic things. How am I supposed to defend against that behavior? That is terrible character assassination. I don’t know what to do about it.

>>14634234
I have taken yoga before! Downward dog is my favorite post uWu

>>14634234
Please fuck off creep. You admit you are a loser.

>>14634237
Mandlbabe you don't need us to assassinate your character. You do a well enough job of that yourself.

>>14634240
do you want to spoon with me tonight? I desperately want to be held by you~

>>14634240
Imposter. What are you trying to achieve here? Why are you harassing me?

>>14634246
change your twitter status to "I want to be cuddled" and I'll believe you aren't the imposter, mandlbabe

>>14634245
Only if you admit that COAM is not conserved. I will accept all your cum if you do that for me.

The reasonable response to being presented with a theoretical physics paper is to address it instead of try and insult or creep out the person presenting it.

>>14634242
Mandlbabe!!! Stop hiding from your feelings. Search your feelings, padawan. You know in your heart of hearts you want your prostate massaged as you tell me COAM is falsified.

>>14634251
COAM IS NOT CONSERVED

>>14634267
Well I'm rock hard now. You did the Honorable thing, sir. C u 2nite? I will do some yoga for you. Downward dog. UwU

>>14633019
Wishful thinking. Continue to be a piece of shit stuck to the Earth.

conserve deez nutz

>>14633024
I wouldn't even lay a finger on you, you're a danger to yourself.

Better things are to be had. If it's hell you want, it's hell you'll get, and I won't be a part of it.

>196 replies
>25 posters
schizo hour up in here

are we winning yet schizo bros?

>>14633068
To think ugly dweebs like the one in my image try and get people to kill themselves.

How desperate.

>>14633588
Your mistakes doing the energy equations and angular momentum leading you to erroneously claim a million percent increase in energy.

>>14635127
There is nothing “erroneous”. You have failed to point out any error. Vague suggestions of error are not scientific. Point out an error directly or accept the conclusion. End of story. Why is this emotional for you?

>>14634039
I show that it does not spin as fast as my motorcycle engine. Which is very obvious.

>>14633024
I am a guy who made a discovery and has scientists losing their shit so badly that they literally follow around and impersonate me for the purpose of slandering me because they cannot defeat my papers. Surely you should recognize that the people doing the slandering are the ones evading the facts and susceptible to your childish behavior

>>14635313
>You have failed to point out any error.
You produced an equation adding a million percent energy when energy is conserved in the equation. Repeating a dodge is just an excuse.

>>14635327
Good morning Mandlbabe xoxo

>>14633671
DP?

>>14635332
No, the equation conserves angular momentum and to do that it requires a million percent increase in energy.

>>14634300
>people talk a lot during an argument woah

>>14635355
>No, the equation conserves angular momentum and to do that it requires a million percent increase in energy.
Nope. It means you fucked up. Nobody has a problem with the equation but you. Only you are getting those results.

>>14635370
Nobody has calculated the predictions before. Obviously. Otherwise they would have had a problem with the results. We have been just telling each other that “it spins faster”. When you evaluate it, it is clear that the theory is wrong.

>>14635378
>Nobody has calculated the predictions before. Obviously.
Considering you have to calculate angular momentum for angular energy uhhhhhhhh what the fuck are you smoking?

>>14635380
No, I am calculating the energy required if angular momentum is conserved.

>>14635384
>No, I am calculating the energy required if angular momentum is conserved.
Nope. Energy is conserved because angular momentum is conserved. You did the math wrong.
>Nobody has calculated the predictions before. Obviously.
I ask again: What the fuck are you smoking?

>>14635390
Nope. For angular momentum to be conserved, the momentum must increase. If the momentum increases the energy increases. They are mutually exclusive.

>>14635541
>If the momentum increases the energy increases.
Because you pull the string, adding energy into the system. Thanks for admitting it yet again. You are, again, admitting you are not calculating conservation of energy correctly.

>>14635571
You idiot. I am calculating the energy required to be input in order to conserve angular momentum. Now fuck off with your convoluted confusions. Asshole. The professor has to put in the energy to conserve COAM if we calculate how much energy is needed to conserve angular momentum then we are calculating how much energy the professor has to put in you fucking moron.

>>14635571
>I am calculating the energy required to be input in order to conserve angular momentum.
Nope. You used the wrong kinetic energy equation in your PDF. I've pointed this out. As have others. This lead you to wrongly report "a million percent added energy" when in fact you would have to put energy INTO the system to conserve its angular momentum.

Thanks for admitting you did it wrong. Which you just keep doing over and over again.

>>14635637
Incorrect. The equation is right and it is from my book for the example. You are lying.that is all.

>>14635657
>Incorrect. The equation is right and it is from my book for the example. You are lying.that is all.
Nope. You calculate a million % energy from nowhere. That is incorrect.

>>14635660
No. I calculate the million percent according to COAM directly.

>>14635718
Yes, we've been over this, you fucked up.

John picked up a brain-eating disease from one of his tranny hoers.

>>14635728
No, you fucked up. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14635774
You pull a million % increase in energy from nowhere. As mentioned repeatedly, the energy you put in the system equals the energy in the system. Hence, you fucked up.

>>14635778
Well, energy you put in on top of the energy already there, rather.

>>14635778
No, the energy comes from the professor pulling the string dummy.

>>14635798
>No, the energy comes from the professor pulling the string dummy.
Congratulations. So you don't get "a million % energy" from nowhere. Thanks for admitting it again.

>>14635780
Yes, the professor must put in the 1000000% extra energy

>>14635802
No, it does not come from nowhere. The professor put it in by pulling the string. Duh.

>>14635806
>Yes, the professor must put in the 1000000% extra energy
And therefore angular momentum is conserved as is energy. See, you got there eventually.

>>14635813
But the professor is not Incredible Hulk is he?

>e
Dude isn't it enough for you to spam your arguments with John on shit like Twitter? Why the fuck do you have to shit up this board as well with your canned responses? You're more pathetic than John at this stage.

>>14635818
I am not pathetic. You are. You are in denial of 12000 rpm

>>14631023
hes just a schizo that was lucky enough to have money before he lost his shit

>>14635815
>But the professor is not Incredible Hulk is he?
How much mass does it have? Are you rotating a dust mote or a 200 kilo weight?

>>14635824
A mass which is reasonable for a ball on a string demonstration and stop being obtuse. Dumb fuck.

>>14635823
No, I was lucky enough to have built up a business before I made my historical scientific discovery which cannot fail to revolutionize physics and space travel.

>>14635826
>A mass which is reasonable for a ball on a string demonstration
Neat, so why do you erroneously conclude the ball must go at 12000 rpm for a 10% reduction in radius? Oh right because you fucked up.

>>14635829
No, because that is what COAM directly predicts dumb fuck.

>>14635830
>No, because that is what COAM directly predicts dumb fuck.
Nope. That's what your fucking up predicts. You did the equations wrong. This has been explained to you.

>>14635834
No. The equations are according to existing physics you delusional twit.

>>14635837
>No. The equations are according to existing physics you delusional twit.
If you did them correctly they would be. You did not. This has been explained to you.

>>14635850
I did them by the book you fucking ignorant moron. Whatever excuses people have tried to make up are lies asshole.

>>14635858
>I did them by the book you fucking ignorant moron
No, you did them incorrectly. I did them in entirety in a thread, repasted it in another thread for you to review, and demonstrated this by using consistent figures.

>>14635873
No. I did the calculations correctly by the book and you are a lying piece of fucking shit.

>>14635882
Ok then publish it and be happy. Swearing at people won't help you find a publisher. Do you want your discovery to go unnoticed because you are rude on the internet?

>>14635884
I cannot publish because of bias and lying pieces of shit like you, who make up most modern physicists apparently.

>>14635882
>No. I did the calculations correctly by the book and you are a lying piece of fucking shit.
No, you did not. I showed you how to do them properly, in entirety, which is not what you do in your PDF. You seem more interested in feeling special than getting it right.

>>14635896
Yes, I did and you are a lying piece is shit who has never shown me anything that was reasonable in his life.

>>14635896
You seem more interested in winning irrelevant of facts like a total cunt.

>>14635899
>Yes, I did and you are a lying piece is shit who has never shown me anything that was reasonable in his life.
m = 2 kg
r1 = 40 m
r2 = 4 m (for sake of demonstration given as 1/10th r1)
v1 = 2 m/s
v2 = is 20 m/s given [math]v_2 = 2 m/s(\frac{40 m}{4 m})\ or v_2 = s1(\frac{r1}{r2})[/math] (Note: 1,000% of 2 m/s)
Note: Rotational speed = spin
rads1 = 0.05 m/s given [math]\omega = \frac{rs}{|r|^2}[/math]
rads2 = 5 m/s (Note: 10,000% of rads1 - you'll know why later just keep reading)
Angle difference = orbit
AD1 = ~0.4775 rpm given [math]\omega = \frac{\alpha_2 - \alpha_1}{t}\ or\ \omega = \frac{\Delta\alpha}{t}[/math]
AD2 = ~47.75 rpm (Note: 10,000% of AD1)
Angular Velocity = spin but as a vector (note it's the same but in radians)
AV1 = 0.05 radians/sec [math]\omega = \frac{(2\ m/s)}{40 m} \ given\ \omega =\frac{v}{r}[/math]
AV2 = 5 radians/sec (Note: 10,000% of AV1)
[...]
Following from my complete figures above, and continuing to use consistent starting figures (which you failed to do):
[math]KE=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math] becomes [math]KE_1=(\frac{1}{2})(2 kg)(2 m/s)^2[/math] or r1 & s1 = 4 jules with all the conversions said and done, or 400 jules for r2&s2. That is an increase of 10,000% in energy produced because... angular momentum is conserved.

There it is again. I list all figures for each step and part of the equation plus conservation of energy. There is no "million % increase". You did the equations wrong.

>>14635902
I even went with a truly ridiculous 40 meter radius. You did the equations wrong.

>>14635915
You calculations do not conserve angular momentum you fucking moron. You use engineering equations which conserve angular energy and contradict physics. Idiot. My proof stands and you look stupid and are delusional.

>>14635918
>You calculations do not conserve angular momentum you fucking moron.
Prove it.

>>14635921
I have proved it here you asshole : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14635924
>I have proved it here you asshole : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf
You mean where you didn't do all the necessary equations and make mistakes? Don't do unit conversions? Don't list your starting values like I did here? >>14635914

I think you're scared. From the starting state of 4 jules I add 396 jules and get a corresponding increase in angular momentum. Showing conservation of energy and angular momentum.

You're too scared to actually do the proper full equations because you know you're wrong, and your narcissism won't let you admit it.

>>14635928
I do all the calculations and there are no mistakes liar.

>>14635931
Nope. Full equations are listed above >>14635914. You do nothing of the kind.

>>14635932
Your equation v2=(s1/s2) v1 contradicts COAM you fuckjng idiot.

>>14635936
>Your equation v2=(s1/s2) v1 contradicts COAM you fuckjng idiot.
Linear velocity is not angular velocity. You did it wrong. Again you admit it.

>>14635937
Your equations do not match COAM dickhead >>14635932

>>14635939
>Your equations do not match COAM dickhead
They don't match you doing it wrong because you did it wrong.

>>14635940
A million percent increase is correct for the example
In my paper. You have failed to falsify my maths and try to claim the results wrong. Which is literally insane.

>>14635946
>A million percent increase is correct for the example
Nope. You would have to put in that amount of energy. Are you the hulk? Can you pull a cord so fast it produces that many jules of added energy?

You did not do the full equations on purpose. Because you want to feel special.

>>14635940
Yes, there is your mistake. 40m to 4 m. My example of 1000000% is 100cm to 1cm.

>>14635949
That is not a mistake, it's using different units and distances to show how to do it properly. It's called "an example".

Your paper just says "100". It does not say "100 cm". 100 what? Lightyears? Miles? Where's the mass? Where's the figures? Your paper has none of it.

For that matter, where's the angular velocity equation? [math]\omega = \frac{\alpha_2 - \alpha_1}{t}\ or\ \omega = \frac{\Delta\alpha}{t}[/math] You have r1/r2... which is for linear velocity.

>>14635956
It is a mistake because the reduction must be to one hundredth. Do that and a million percent is the answer.

>>14635959
>reduction must be to one hundredth
Which then requires an additional magnitude in energy put into the system.

Are you the hulk?

>>14635960
A five year old can pull in a ball on a string, so the fact that it is impossible for a five year old to have enough energy to even pull in the string shows that the prediction is stupidly wrong. Duh.

>>14635962
>A five year old can pull in a ball on a string,
Not with enough energy to make the ball move that fast. In fact, that'd snap most any string. Get your stupid mistake yet?

>>14635965
In theory, a five year old cannot possibly pull in the string but in reality they can pull it in. This is what is known as a prediction which contradicts reality and it means that the theory is wrong.

>>14635967
>In theory, a five year old cannot possibly pull in the string but in reality they can pull it in.
Not enough to put that much energy in the system.

Ding ding ding you realized your mistake.

>>14635969
No, sir, it is you making a mistake. The theory states that the string can’t be pulled in unless that amount of energy is applied. Since the five year old can pul it in, the energy is not required, so the theory is wrong.

>>14635974
> The theory states that the string can’t be pulled in unless that amount of energy is applied.
What amount of energy? Come on pal you're almost there. What amount of force would be required to accelerate it to 12000 RPM. Bet you're scared to find out.

>>14635977
Much more than a five year old is capable of. Face the fact that the theory is wrong.

As far as schizo theories go, I guess at least this one is relatively harmless

>>14635986
This means that the vast majority of published physics must be trashed and rewritten. If that is “harmless” in your little delusional mind then fine.

>>14635984
>Much more than a five year old is capable of.
Exactly. Now tell me given the force you can pull, how fast should it spin?

As I kept telling you: You did it wrong. Because you are not accounting for the force on the pull. Once you do, it'll more closely match your real life result.

>>14635991
You are a fucking moron. The theory demands more energy that is required in real life, so the theory is wrong. Is that difficult to understand?

>>14635994
>The theory demands more energy that is required in real life
To get 12000 RPM, by your pulling it, yes. That is how you did it wrong, by doing it out of order. So why don't you calculate what your force of pull is and estimate what result that would be? Better yet, use a weak motor (like a lego motor) to pull a string and test it that way for more precision.

>>14635998
Fuck off moron. My calculations are right and you are out of your fucking mind.

>>14635998
The law does not say that angular momentum is only conserved if you are feeling strong enough you fucking rocks for brains.

>>14636004
>The law does not say that angular momentum is only conserved if you are feeling strong enough you fucking rocks for brains.
... And?

Which is it? You want to see the results in real life where you are limited by how much force you can add to the string, or an abstract case? What you're admitting to doing is applying an abstract case exceeding how much you can pull in reality... and not finding the same result in reality by not comparing the energy requirements.

Again, it is not wrong. You did it wrong.

>>14636005
You are a fucking idiot. Theory is intended to predict reality. The scienctific method is to compare the prediction to reality and if it does not match then the theory is wrong and must be rejected. 12000 rpm does not match reality so COAM is false.

>>14636012
>Theory is intended to predict reality.
And in reality you are limited by the force you exert in the string, so you need to calculate using that force. In the abstract it can be "any force".

Congrats, you fucked up.

>>14636013
No, idiot. In reality you do not need to apply the force that is predicted so the prediction is wrong, so the theory is wrong.

>>14636017
>In reality you do not need to apply the force that is predicted so the prediction is wrong
This is jibberish. Again: In reality you are limited by the force you can apply, so you need to calculate that force in the equation to get how much energy is added in order to know how fast the system will spin.

>>14636017
Clearly, you actually measured the force needed to do it. Go ahead and present that.

>>14636021
Oh I'm afraid he realizes what he did now. That's why he's reduced to jibberish. When a narcissist feels they're really caught they start doing what's called "schizophasia" (jibberish).

>>14636020
You are so stupid, that you are literally arguing that angular momentum is not conserved. Fuckwit.

>>14636026
>that you are literally arguing that angular momentum is not conserved
Nope. I am explaining how it is, and where you fucked up. You fucked up by not doing the calculations for the force you used to pull the string, so you didn't get what you'd see in real life.

An abstract example can use infinite force. In real life you can't. You fucked up.

>>14636028
No, you are literally claiming that it depends on how hard you pull. Which contradicts the law of COAM directly.

>>14636030
>No, you are literally claiming that it depends on how hard you pull.
It does.
>Which contradicts the law of COAM directly.
Prove it.

>>14636032
If it depends on how hard you pull then it does not depend upon conservation of angular momentum, right?

>>14636034
>If it depends on how hard you pull then it does not depend upon conservation of angular momentum, right?
No. You can determine force required based on increase in spin, or you can determine increase in spin by force applied. Either way angular momentum is conserved... because energy is conserved as angular momentum. You did it wrong pal. Do it properly.

>>14636041
You are fucking nuts. Either angular momentum is conserved and you have to pull like Incredible Hulk, or you do not have to pull like Incredible Hulk and angular momentum is not conserved. You can’t have both stupid.

>>14636047
>Either angular momentum is conserved and you have to pull like Incredible Hulk
To go as fast as your dishonest abstract example, yes.
> or you do not have to pull like Incredible Hulk and angular momentum is not conserved
No, it's "or you calculate the energy of your pull in reality and you get conserved angular momentum". The force applied is proportionate to how fast it spins after you pull. You've got it, you just won't let yourself realize it.

>>14636051
My example is not dishonest. 12000 rpm is the prediction for a typical rendition very similar to the one in example 4. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

It does not don12000 rpm, so angular momentum is not conserved.

Not difficult. Straight forward in fact. If angular momentum were conserved then the result would be 12000 rpm. Since the result is clearly not 12000 rpm, angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14636056
>12000 rpm is the prediction for a typical rendition very similar to the one in example 4. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html
In the abstract where you can apply any force you want.
>My example is not dishonest.
Can you apply "any force you want" in reality?

>>14636059
You can apply any force you want in reality and angular momentum is not conserved in reality.

>>14635977
>What amount of energy? Come on pal you're almost there. What amount of force would be required to accelerate it to 12000 RPM. Bet you're scared to find out.
Are you literally just trying to bait people into writing your papers for you to get published?


>>14635989
>This means that the vast majority of published physics must be trashed and rewritten. If that is “harmless” in your little delusional mind then fine.
If only you knew how bad things really are...

>>14636060
>You can apply any force you want in reality
Okay so pull a string hard enough to produce 12000 rpm for the rotating ball. Since you're not being dishonest.

>>14636064
How bad are things really?

>>14636076
You are either dishonest or insane. If the law cannot be reproduced in reality then the law cannot be a law. Do you understand?

>>14636078
>If the law cannot be reproduced in reality then the law cannot be a law
Can be, you just refuse to actually account for the energy you're providing in reality. Not wrong, you're just dishonest.

>>14636064
schizo image

>>14636077
>How bad are things really?
Not good. There are whole fields of Academia that need to be wiped and the people involved investigated.

>>14636077

>>14636082
I account for the energy you idiot. How many fucking times must we go over this. The energy is in eq 19 you lying piece of shit.

>>14636095
The law of conservation of angular momentum is false, so most of science is wrong. Wtf is this bullshit got to do with it.

>>14636096
>I account for the energy you idiot.
You do not account for the energy you put in, in real life. You know you didn't, because you can't pull with enough force to produce 12000 RPM. All it falsifies is that you aren't the hulk.

>>14636100
That is illogical. If angular momentum is conserved then the million percent energy increase has to go into the system otherwise angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14636103
>If angular momentum is conserved then the million percent energy increase has to go into the system otherwise angular momentum is not conserved.
To get 12000 RPM. Can you yank it hard as the hulk in an instant? I thought you agreed you can't. So it is conserved, just proportionate to the energy YOU can produce, because YOU cannot produce "any amount of energy up to and including infinite".

>>14636098
>Wtf is this bullshit got to do with it.
I'm saying a lot of (((Science))) is just Sociology nonsense disguised as "Science". Many fields are plagued with deceiving grifters who obfuscate their "work" by falsifying tests/data to promote their work.
The sad thing is, not everyone involved in the grifts is aware of the scam- as they are assuming that the (((experts))) wouldn't dare dream of stretching the truth or outright lie about anything.

It's truly unfortunate, because obviously Science has achieved god-like achievements, and it's unfortunate that many imposters are allowed to LARP as Gods because of the feats of other legitimate Scientists.

>>14636119
What about a gun accelerating a bullet?
That's a pretty strong instantaneous force.

The theory of "Gravity" needs to be completely reworked, because Mass isn't responsible for the many attributes we attribute to "Gravity".

>>14636137
If you're trying to solve the "Two trains leave the station X miles apart from each other, with one train traveling at Ymph, and the other traveling at Zmph, how long until they meet each other?

You don't have to know the "mass" of the train station each train is leaving from. You just need to know the absolutes given (Distance and Velocity).

>>14636124
My problem is not about certain bad people. My problem is about a simple dispute that can easily be measured and resolved in five minutes using very cheap materials. But ALL scientists refuse to make the measurements or accept the measurements I have done or accept the independent measurements perfectly confirming my theory for a ball on a string demonstration.
They neglect me and sit back while the few bad ones incessantly personally attack me. Neglect is as bad as personal attack. All scientists are complacent negligent and guilty of prejudice and dishonesty.
When the truth is that what I have discovered is a massive leap forward in science on the same level as recognizing that earth was not the centre of the universe. Quantum mechanics, relativity, Noether’s theorem, nearly every physicist that has ever been, are all shown false.

History is being made.

That is just the plain and simple fact.

I just have to pay the price of facing the hatred from humanity.

Hopefully I will see results before I die.

But historically it is more likely I will die before the stupidity stops.

And all they have to do is measure. It’s stupid.

>>14636150
>My problem is about a simple dispute that can easily be measured and resolved in five minutes using very cheap materials.
...If you were to honestly calculate the energy you put in to get your rotation in real life, yes. You choose to be a narcissist instead.

>muh Black Holes
>muh Speed of Light
>muh Gravitational Lensing

>>14636151
My calculations are honest and you are literally unreasonable. The theory makes predictions that contradict reality, so the theory is wrong.

>>14636150
>And all they have to do is measure. It’s stupid.
They'll just say they measured it and make up data to confirm they were right all along.

>>14636154
All of it is wrong because a ball on a string does not do 12000 rpm. But it is much better to have good theory than bad theory with patches.

>>14636156
>The theory makes predictions that contradict reality, so the theory is wrong.
You do them wrong, so you are wrong. That's really all there is to it.

>>14636158
I went through that 6 years ago. The assholes all started yanking on balls on strings desperately trying to disprove me but overlooked that they disproved themselves. That is why I have set some rules. It has to be a typical example of a ball on a string, starting at 2 rps and having the radius gently and consistently reduced over a period of about a second to ten percent. And then tell us whether it is closer to 1200 or 12000 rpm.

>>14636166
Right, so, you admit you're dishonest. You know nobody is the hulk, so you know nobody can do it. You know you're doing it wrong, but you want to feel special. You set up "rules" that are impossible to fulfill and think that makes it okay, but it doesn't.

As I said before: Gotcha bitch.

>>14636162
I do right. I make the prediction of COAM. It is not wrong. It is pure COAM. The prediction does not match reality so the theory is wrong.

>>14636170
>The prediction does not match reality so the theory is wrong.
Nope. You do it wrong, lie about it being COAM, and when corrected act confused and engage in schizophasia. Nobody's falling for it.

>>14636169
I make the prediction of COAM. COAM claims that Incredible Hulk is necessary, which is absurd, so my reductio ad absurdum is proved.

>>14636175
>COAM claims that Incredible Hulk is necessary, which is absurd,
The dishonesty continues. No, to get that rate of 12000 RPM requires the incredible hulk. You refuse to do the equations correctly because you want to feel special.

>>14636174
I do not lie about it being COAM. My equations are referenced. I do COAM by the book. The prediction is stupidly wrong so the law is wrong.

>>14636161
>But it is much better to have good theory than bad theory with patches.
It's more like bad theories with a few good patches that happen to work.
I'm not saying all of Science is misguided or fraudulent. But there is a considerable amount that is purported to be true by (((scientific consensus))).

>>14636169
>You know nobody is the hulk
Machinery could fit that role. But you already knew that.

>>14636178
To have COAM succeed, we need the 12000 rpm. No 12000 rpm = no COAM.

>>14636179
>I do not lie about it being COAM.
You do. COAM is proportionate to the energy in the system. The lie is in your dishonest bait and switch between abstractly having up to infinite energy, and in real life not having it. That is lying. You know you're doing it, too.
>>14636183
>To have COAM succeed, we need the 12000 rpm. No 12000 rpm = no COAM.
You'd need the incredible hulk to get to 12000 rpm. No incredible hulk, no 12000 rpm. This is the lie. Do the calculations based on what force you actually put in, you won't get 1200 rpm.

Bet you won't.

>>14636186
COAM is proportionate to the radius and the energy.

>>14636188
>COAM is proportionate to the radius and the energy.
Yep. So why do your "rules" require people proportionately pull a string like the incredible hulk? You'd know how fast it spins if you did it honestly and calculated based on the energy you actually are pulling it.

>>14636186
The fact that you accept that 12000 rpm is unrealistic, means that you agree with my conclusion.

>>14636190
The point I make by showing you that COAM makes unrealistic predictions is that COAM is false.

>>14636191
>The fact that you accept that 12000 rpm is unrealistic
No, it is realistic, IF you had that amount of energy applied it an instant and everything withstood it. I was talking about your knowingly dishonest "rules" where you're requiring that instead of calculating it based on the energy of pulling the string yourself.

Keep two things in mind and stop your delusion: 1. You are not the hulk (so no 12000 rpm real life), 2. It is proportionate to the energy you actually put in.
>>14636194
>The point I make by showing you that COAM makes unrealistic predictions
Nope. If you had that energy in real life it would be realistic. IF.

>>14636183
How many RPM for conservation of angular energy?

>>14636195
>Keep two things in mind and stop your delusion: 1. You are not the hulk (so no 12000 rpm real life), 2. It is proportionate to the energy you actually put in.
You can do a lot with magnets.

>>14636204
*Also note that the RPM would vary depending where along the Top you decided to measure.
The base would rotate at a higher RPM than the top.
So I'm not sure why RPM is necessarily relevant.

>>14636206
He's talking about the ball and string example, so orbiting body not axis of rotation.

Basically, he perpetually bait-and-switches. He does an abstract example not accounting for energy, then claims it's "debunked" because pulling the string under your own power can't produce 12000 rpm. Except in real life obviously you cannot instantaneously pull a string with that much energy under your own arm power. He's just a narcissist who wants to feel special.

>>14636212
I'm honestly not well learned in Physics, and am not very familiar with COAM, but I do believe a depressing amount of modern "science" is based on bad science and/or intentional deception.

>>14636221
>I'm honestly not well learned in Physics, and am not very familiar with COAM, but I do believe a depressing amount of modern "science" is based on bad science and/or intentional deception.
A bit off topic, but most people who allege that are bad at science and rely on deception. e.g. Mandlbaur. So it's rather... ironic.

>>14636223
Ok, but does COAM account for picrel?

>>14636060
>You can apply any force you want in reality
Okay then, then film yourself pulling a string with the force of 100 tons to prove that you can. Do it.

>>14636233
Just drop 100 tons on something attached to the string?
Is that cheating just because it's not your own arm doing it?

>>14636238
That's basically the best way to do the experiment. Instead of pulling the string with some unmeasured amount of force just have a weight on it and then drop another weight when you spin the mass around. This gives you the most reliable way of measuring the string tension without any special measurement tools, just known weights.

>>14636225
>Ok, but does COAM account for picrel?
Yes. How complicated of an explanation do you want?

Two objects of different diameter, same mass, same energy? The one of smaller diameter will rotate faster around the point of axis. The angular displacement will be greater in the same amount of time.

You can see this yourself with calculators like this one: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/angular-displacement

Keep the distance constant with a smaller or larger radius. You will see the angular displacement change. You can have it in radians or "turns" or whatever you want. There are also videos on this for things like moment of inertia.

>>14636252
>That's basically the best way to do the experiment. Instead of pulling the string with some unmeasured amount of force just have a weight on it and then drop another weight when you spin the mass around. This gives you the most reliable way of measuring the string tension without any special measurement tools, just known weights.
And that is exactly why Mandlbaur is terrified to do the experiment and calculations properly. Because he won't be special anymore.

>>14636255
Ok. But what about objects where the radius is a gradient, like in picrel?

>>14636261
Or what about an object like picrel, where an irregular, unbalanced object wouldn't "spin" the same way a ball would?

>>14636261
>Ok. But what about objects where the radius is a gradient, like in picrel?
You cry and start doing things like euler angles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body_dynamics
>>14636271
You start throwing things at your professor.

>>14636274
Alright, I'll assume that addresses picrel, where same size/weight- just altered weight distributions.

But are the rules calculating Angular Motion taking the Earth's rotation into consideration as well?
Or are all the tests performed using the Earth as a "universal constant"?

>>14636261
In this case, you can do an integration along the length of the object to figure out its moment of inertia
>>14636271
You die.

>>14636300
>You die.
There, you see, I'm not wrong.

>>14636303
If you really want to, you can integrate it as well. If there's no easy analytical solution you can approximate it numerically.

>>14636310
Well yes, but I'm not about to go through exampling all of it to a rando fucko on 4chan who can be equally just trolling for wasted effort I don't find fun to do.

>>14636318
Btw I'm a different guy than the one who originally replied. I don't know know what the two of you are trying to do.

Ok, I guess I'm a little confused.
Is Angular Momentum where a ball is "rotating"(like a spinning top), or is it more analgous to the movement's "orbit"(like a ball on a string)?

And also, people say that if the Earth were to spin 10x as fast, then everyone would fly off. But what if the Earth's EM field's strength increased due to the increased rotation, thus "pulling" the atmosphere tighter towards the center, thereby creating artificially stronger gravity, due to the increased atmospheric pressure that would be perceived?

>>14636340
And you know how spinning-tops experience precission? Could you counter the precession by weighting it properly?

>>14636340
>Is Angular Momentum where a ball is "rotating"(like a spinning top), or is it more analgous to the movement's "orbit"(like a ball on a string)?
Personally I don't really know how to intuitively explain what angular momentum is exactly. It's harder than linear momentum, however, one is the consequence of the other. If linear momentum is conserved so is angular momentum.
>But what if the Earth's EM field's strength increased due to the increased rotation, thus "pulling" the atmosphere tighter towards the center, thereby creating artificially stronger gravity, due to the increased atmospheric pressure that would be perceived?
what
>>14636348
>Could you counter the precession by weighting it properly?
No

>>14636340
>Is Angular Momentum where a ball is "rotating"(like a spinning top), or is it more analgous to the movement's "orbit"(like a ball on a string)?
There isn't really a difference. For rotation, the axis of rotation ends up being inside the object, while for an orbit, the axis of rotation ends up being outside the object. The math is the same for both cases.

>>14636257
No, this is a way to manufacture yanking on the string which is #unscientific nonsense. If COAM were right then you would have tons of evidence and not have to manufacture a result that you like by yanking.

>>14636252
Bullshit. This is a method of altering the experiment to get a “better result” which is very #unscientific and amounts to cherry picking.

>>14636233
If the theory requires 100 tons and in reality a five year old can pull in the string then either reality is wrong or the theory is wrong.

>>14636223
There is no deception in my work you lying piece of shit.
The deception is you relying on things that “spin faster” and refusing to measure you deceitful cunt.

>>14636212
Are you fucking stupid. If the theory says that we have to pull with more force than is realistic, the theory is wrong you moron

>>14636203
1200 rpm. For an example which starts at 2rps and is reduced to 10% radius.

>>14636195
If 12000 is realistic prediction for every ball on a string demonstration ever conducted in history then you are a fucking nutcase.

>>14636899
>>14636902
>perform a shitty uncontrolled experiment with poor measurements = cool and scientific
>perform a controlled experiment that allows for precise measurements = bad and unscientific
I dunno, chief. It sounds like you are wrong or something.

>>14637051
Do you think that a typical ball on a string demonstration does 12000 rpm?
“Or something” asshole.

>>14637075
Just perform a properly controlled experiment instead of this intellectual vomit and stop bothering people.

I John right, bros? Are we really off by a decimal? I hope he's right and the establishment is forced to eat shit.