/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14700068
I'm in love with the ballerina

>>14700074
Well you can also make accurate measurements of her and you will confirm that angular energy is conserved and still falsify angular momentum conservation.
She also has been misleading us by “spinning faster” for 300 years.

>>14700074
she look like a slut

>>14700079
Even sluts conserve angular energy and falsify COAM.

>>14700068
What's your goal, Baur? What do you want to happen and why do you think commandeering half of 4chan's sci board will create that?

Different but related question, what would it take to get you to stop?

>>14700088
My goal is to have the stupid mistake fixed.
I am not commandeering anything.
I am presenting my discovery.
I will stop when people recognize the obvious truth.
What is confusing about that. My behavior is totally reasonable and transparent.

>>14700101
When one person recognizes it as true or when everyone on sci does? Because sci doesn't agree on anything. And nobody here is capable of fixing the mistake, either alone or all together.

>>14700116
The way I see it is this: everyone on the planet currently agrees that angular momentum is conserved which is totally false and unsupported by any direct evidence.
My job as the person who discovered that it is false is to expose the stupid mistake and get people to recognize and agree that it is false.

As soon as one or two people start supporting me, then the hood of cards will start to crumble.

I will only stop when the stupidity has fallen.

This is not difficult.

>>14700068
What kids show shit are you reading were they actually say "accelerates like a Ferrari engine".

>>14700126
unblock me on twitter, nigger

>>14700183
I was reading a physics text book and calculated the prediction accordingly and the result is that a typical rendition must do 12000 rpm, which is as fast as a Ferrari engine spins when on full throttle at top engine speed, sir.

Since this speed must be achieved within the second that it takes to pull in the string, it must accelerate from idle to that within a second which is roughly the same amount of time a Ferrari engine spins up when you floor the throttle and the gearbox is in neutral, sir.

Ie: accelerates like a Ferrari engine, sir.

>>14700193
>roughly the same amount of time a Ferrari engine spins up when you floor the throttle and the gearbox is in neutral

>roughly
>1 second

Nigger, you are retarded. This is some 1*1 = 2 bullshit.

>>14700193
My bike revs higher faggot.
What sort of crank you got in that string and cup faggot? Those titanium valves as well? What sort of comprehension she running? You spring for that four into one dual performance exhaust faggot? You got genuine factory scuderia badges as least, right?

>>14700225
Nope. 2 * 10 * 10 *60 = 12000 rpm.
COAM must be false.

>>14700228
Stock Ducati Multistrada 620 dark. Awesomeness.
I wish I could ride it, but I can’t risk my life while people are still in denial because the loss to humanity is too high a risk.

>>14700238
>buy a Ducati
>pick the ugliest one for old men
>still too scared to ride it
Yep. You're a Ducatist alright.

>>14700230
>>14700068
>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.

What do you think moment of inertia is?

>If angular momentum were actually conserved, we would have observed the ball accelerating so quickly that centripetal / centrifugal force would have strained the tether beyond breaking point, the ball become a missile and quite possibly killed one of the spectators. This is exactly what the outgoing scientific mathematics predicts.

You forgot to do and show any mathematics.

Pic related. You talk about reducing the radius to 1/10th of r1 but you present this as your derivation? What the fuck are you doing? This isn't maths, it's nonsense non-sequiturs.

>>14700249
>Pic related.
Pic related

>>14700250
Excuse me, I'm retarded, the algebra is fine.

You are still a retard with a retarded thread.

>>14700246
Jealous. faggot.

>>14700256
If the maths is fine then you have to accept the conclusion. Idiot.

>>14700266
There is nothing wrong with the 12000rpm

>>14700271
Except that reality disagrees with it which by the scientific method, falsifies COAM.

>>14700271
Are you incapable of reading beyond the results of the maths to the section titled “conclusion” retard?

Let [math]M = V[/math] be a vector space with a Euclidean inner product. Let [math]G = SO(V)[/math] be the connected Lie group of automorphisms of [math]V[/math] preserving the inner product, and let [math]\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{so}(V)[/math] be the Lie algebra of [math]G[/math]. Suppose that a Lagrangian [math]\mathcal{L}[/math] is invariant with respect to the action of a one-parameter subgroup [math]g_s (q) =e^{sx}\cdot q[/math] of [math]G[/math] on [math]V[/math], where [math]x\in \mathfrak{g}[/math] and [math]e^x[/math] is the exponential map. According to Noether's theorem

[math]I=\sum_{i=1}^n (x\cdot q)^i \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} }{\partial \dot{q}^i}[/math]

is an integral of motion
Now let [math](M, \mathcal{L})[/math] be a closed Lagrangian system of [math]N[/math] interacting particles
We have [math]M = V =\mathbb{R}^{3N}[/math], and the Lagrangian [math]\mathcal{L}[/math] is invariant under a simultaneous rotation of coordinates [math]\mathbf{r}_a[/math] of all particles by the same orthogonal transformation in [math]\mathbb{R}^3[/math]

Thus, [math]x=(u,...,u)\in\mathfrak{so}(3)\oplus ...\oplus \mathfrak{so}(3)[/math], and for every [math]u\in \mathfrak{so}(3)[/math]

[math]I=\sum_{a=1}^N \left( (u\cdot \mathbf{r}_a)^1 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} }{\partial \dot{r}_a^1}+(u\cdot \mathbf{r}_a)^2 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} }{\partial \dot{r}_a^2}+(u\cdot \mathbf{r}_a)^3 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} }{\partial \dot{r}_a^3}\right)[/math]
is an integral of motion. Let [math]u=u^1 X_1+ u^2 X_2 + u^3 X_3[/math], where [math]X_1=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & 0& 0 \end{pmatrix}[/math], [math]X_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0& 0 \end{pmatrix}[/math], [math]X_3=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 & 0 \\1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0& 0 \end{pmatrix}[/math] is the basis in [math]\mathfrak{so}(3)\simeq \mathbb{R}^3[/math] corresponding to the rotations about vectors [math]e_1, e_2, e_3[/math] of the standard orthonormal basis in [math]\mathbb{R}^3[/math]

>>14700068
>>14700285
We get

[math]I= u^1M_1 + u^2 M_2 + u^3 M_3[/math]

where [math]\mathbf{M}=(M_1, M_2, M_3)\in \mathbb{R}^3[/math] (or rather a vector in the dual space to [math]\mathfrak{so}(3)[/math]) is given by

[math]\mathbf{M}=\sum_{a=1}^N \mathbf{r}_a \times \frac{\partial \mathcal{L} }{\partial \dot{\mathbf{r}}_a}[/math].

The vector [math]\mathbf{M}[/math] is called the angular momentum of the system. Explicitly,

[math]\mathbf{M}=\sum_{a=1}^N \mathbf{r}_a \times m_a\dot{\mathbf{r}}_a[/math]

so that the total angular momentum of a closed system is the sum of angular momenta of individual particles. Conservation of angular momentum is a fundamental physical law that reflects the isotropy of space. Get fucked, John. Now stop bothering the big boys with your schizophasia.

>>14700193
>a physics text book
Sirs please tell me which so I can look it up, sir. There are often errors in old bad textbooks sir

>>14700285
You can “prove” COAM as much as you like, retard. It will always be a formal logic fallacy because it does not change the fact that reality disagrees with 12000 rpm.

>>14700294
>formal logic fallacy
please point it out

>>14700278
You haven't shown an experiment in reality where friction, air resistance, and external torque are negated, so how do you know reality disagrees?

>>14700230
>>14700193
>>14700126
>>14700101
>>14700068
Sir I am afraid you used the wrong equation in your paper. You should be using the drag equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#The_drag_equation

>>14700293
https://imgur.com/gallery/73ylasM

>>14700300
I have presented a theoretical physics paper, so you have to do experiment minimizing friction and show us 12000 rpm, or accept that it is wrong.

>>14700310
That's not how it works. You have to show that 12000 rpm is wrong with experiment or accept that it is wrong. Your proof does not hold.

>>14700305
Sir what is your problem with the cross product in this example?

>>14700310
>I have presented a theoretical physics paper
You presented a claim that reality disagrees, when you haven't actually replicated what you describe mathematically in reality. You would need to remove friction, air resistance and gravity to determine that the result you predict doesn't occur in reality. Why did you lie?

>so you have to do experiment minimizing friction
No I don't, I didn't make any claim about it. Only you did.

>>14700295
I have presented a theoretical physics paper. You have to show false premiss or illogic in the paper, or accept the conclusion. Attacking the conclusion directly which you do is by definition, illogical.

>>14700321
>You have to show false premiss or illogic in the paper
False premise: reality disagrees with it

Done.

>>14700302
Nope. My equations are referenced and for the given example, sir, and my paper is a theoretical physics paper. Dishonesty is bad science, sir.

>>14700068
Sir please watch this video and tell me what you think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkhMAgwvI_M
You should get in touch with Dr. Unzicker. He's trying to fight physics academia

>>14700323
Sir the book got it wrong, I am afraid to say. Your copy seems to be from the 1980s. I looked it up in my home library and the example has been removed due to using the wrong equation. Please use the drag equation instead. It is a huge mathematical error sir. Aerodynamic phycisists always use this equation as stated in the wikipedia article sir

>>14700321
This is wrong. You have to falsify my proof first. You called it illogical, prove it.

>>14700314
Nonsense. This is a reductio ad absurdum and every rational person who has ever observed a ball on a string which we all have a mental idea of how it works because it is reliable and consistent and repeatable, will strongly agree that it does not accelerate like a Ferrari engine, sir. Personal incredulity is bad science, sir.

>>14700319
>>14700331

>>14700331
>a ball on a string
For this, the drag equation applies sir.
>it does not accelerate like a Ferrari engine
yes sir because the drag equation has to be used sir

>>14700331
>every rational person who has ever observed a ball on a string
I have never observed a ball in a string so if no friction, air resistance or gravity. When are you going to add these to your math?

>>14700322
If you claim that reality disagrees with a reductio ad absurdum then you agree with the conclusion, retard.
Thank you for agreeing with me

>>14700335
See >>14700337

Either fix your math or find a real example. If not, you're lying.

>>14700338
Define reality sir

>>14700328
Well then it is important that my work be published, retard.

You are telling me that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong which is insane.

>>14700338
Sir you are wrong >>14689741
please look up the definition of the cross product. You misunderstood sir

>>14700336
No, liar. The drag equation is not included in my referenced equations, so you are making up lies because you have difficulty facing simple obvious facts.

I though you are going to take a break moron.

>>14700338
>If you claim that reality disagrees with a reductio ad absurdum
The only absurdity you have presented is your claim that friction, air resistance and gravity don't exist. Reality disagrees.

>>14700343
sir no all I am saying is your old Rhodesian high-school textbook has an error. This is not an error in physics. Your old textbook has an error. Please get another textbook sir. I personally recommend Vladimir Arnold's Classical Mechanics book sir

>>14700348
Nope. 12000 rpm disagrees with reality so COAM is false. End of story. Physics must reject theory which makes bad predictions, not make excuses. Moron

>>14700346
>The drag equation is not included in my referenced equations
because it is not applicable to earth's conditions. For earth's conditions, make sure to use the drag equation. The example is false.

>>14700349
No, sir, you are desperately trying to make excuses because you can’t face the simple fact that 12000 rpm inexcusably and objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14700351
Sir I invited you to come speak at the University of Johannesburg yesterday. Why didn't you come?

>>14700355
no sir this is wrong. The example has been removed in later editions due to not applying. Read the textbook I referenced

>>14700068
>>14700077
>>14700082
>>14700101
>>14700126
>>14700193
Sir this theoretical phycisist mentions your proof in this video and shows that it is wrong. He goes over your math and paper and shows it is wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa8tvphg8VE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa8tvphg8VE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa8tvphg8VE

>>14700351
>12000 rpm disagrees with reality
You already admitted you haven't seen friction, air resistance, and gravity negated in reality. Why are you lying?

John, your claim that reality disagrees with your math is unproven. When are you going to prove it? Or just fix your math so it represents the reality of friction, air resistance, and gravity. Either way, and then we can move on.

>>14700384
12000 rpm does not happen in reality, retard.
This is not difficult. If it does not happen in reality then the theory is wrong.

>>14700374
What are you talking about moron. Never in history has it been acceptable behavior to say “friction” and neglect a theoretical physics paper. Dumbass.

>>14700387
>12000 rpm does not happen in reality
Unproven, you haven't replicated your premises in reality. Either do so or fix your math to represent easier to obtain premises. You have to choose one or the other, outgrow your entire argument fails.

>>14700372
Not a single example of a ball on a string doing anything which resembles the theoretical prediction means that it is a bunch of delusional excuses. Not a rebuttal retard. Excuses are not science.

>>14700388
THis video disproves this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83wCFIaKm08

The plane of inertial implies COAM

>>14700393
sir it is near the end. He exlains why you are wrong by showing that angular energy proves COAM

>>14700388
>What are you talking about moron.
I'm talking about how your math ignores the external torque from friction, air resistance and gravity. No experiment in reality has replicated those premises, so your claim that reality disagrees is unproven. Do you really not understand this or are you playing dumb John?

>Never in history has it been acceptable behavior to say “friction” and neglect a theoretical physics paper.
Empirically wrong John, it just happened.

>>14700393
>Not a single example of a ball on a string doing anything which resembles the theoretical prediction means that it is a bunch of delusional excuses.
You have provided no example of a ball on a string unaffected by friction, air resistance and gravity. Thanks for admitting your math is a bunch of delusional excuses John.

>>14700391
Rebuttal 3: moron. Your personal incredulity does not count.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14700395
No 12000 rpm, so no rebuttal, retard. Wishful thinking is unscientific nonsense.

>>14700401
>>14700403
Sir, your paper is refuted by Ken Wheeler, see https://youtu.be/ISdRrZTmuXk
https://youtu.be/yc2Qhtk4N3U
https://youtu.be/eDSrIsvNLsM
Ether is what conserves angular momentum. Please disprove the existence of ether first Sir

>>14700401
>Your personal incredulity
What incredulity? This doesn't respond to anything I said. You claim that reality disagrees with your math. You haven't shown any example of reality which matches your premises and comes to a different conclusion. Therefore your argument fails. Why did you lie John?

>>14700396
Bullshit. L = r x p. If angular energy is constant, p stays the same. If angular momentum is the same, p changes. You can’t have both unless r is also conserved. Engineering retard.

>>14700397
No, you are making excuses and conflating experimental physics with theoretical physics because you are a biased retard in denial.

>>14700400
I don’t have to retard. You have to do that and show us 12000 rpm, or accept that COAM is false.

>>14700407
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and your personal incredulity is irrelevant, retard. Stop projecting

>>14700404
Please show us 12000 rpm first retard. Otherwise you are simply neglecting evidence like a flat earther.

>>14700412
This is wrong, disproved by the plane of inertia
https://youtu.be/1jF8CUyq-gk
https://youtu.be/b4a77HfiRFs
https://youtu.be/qjTckApcp_E
https://youtu.be/nXuINSLqQAg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heF59j-N_sg
https://youtu.be/h9S3ikiL3Ow

>>14700409
>L = r x p. If angular energy is constant, p stays the same
WRONG. If L = const. then r x p = const.
Your math is wrong.
PROOF
r=1
p=1

r x p = 1 x 1 = const. = 1 = 0.5 x 2 = 0.333... x 3 = 0.25 x 4 = ... = 1

>>14700420
This is a bunch of delusional nonsense, none of which falsifies any of my maths nor even addresses my paper at all. It shown only that you are a retard in denial. Moron.

>>14700412
>No, you are making excuses
What excuses?

>conflating experimental physics with theoretical physics
Where? You claimed reality disagrees with theoretical physics. Show the reality in which friction, air resistance, and gravity are negated. Or take these into account in your math. You're the only one who's confused.

>>14700422
If r changes theN p must change. So angular energy changes you fucking delusional engineering retard.

>>14700415
Wrong. COAM is false because gravity can repel, not because of 12000 rpm, retard https://youtu.be/21uFCUFzrmI

>>14700079
Which is why I love her

>>14700426
I don’t have to show a reality which negates friction. Only a reality which negates COAM. Which it does.

>>14700302
He should use drag because he's a tranny.

>>14700414
>I don’t have to
Right, you can just admit that you lied when you said reality disagrees.

>You have to do that
No, you're the one who made the claim.

>>14700429
No, it doesn't. Say L=const.=2, then r x p = 2
This implies r = 2/p. So if r gets larger, p gets smaller, if r gets smaller, p gets larger.

>>14700431
No, retard. COAM is false because a ball on string has never in history resembled a Ferrari engine accelerating. Are you totally fucking ignorant.

>>14700440
retard watch the video so you understand

>>14700433
>I don’t have to show a reality which negates friction.
Right, you can either do that or fix your math to take into account friction. You do have choices.

>Only a reality which negates COAM.
So far you have failed.

>>14700441
You address my paper and stop the red herring moron.

>>14700068
FUCK OFF THIEF. NIGEL HANDS CAME UP WITH DISPROOF OF COAM FIRST https://youtu.be/QJiO2I9iUIY

>>14700443
No, I present a theoretical physics paper using referenced equations and you are asking for the impossible in , retard.

>>14700444
fuck off faggot you don't understand why COAM is false. It's because gravity can repel. Fucking African retard

>>14700445
Fuck off. I was first.

>>14700447
THE REFERENCE BOOK IS WRONG> USE ANOTHER BOOK FAGGOT

>>14700452
No faggot. Nigel Hands proved it in 1986. You are a fucking thief. I will sue you to death faggot

>>14700449
Fuck off faggot troll.

>>14700455
no you fuck off back to zimbabwe, you racist room temperature iq faggot

>>14700453
The book is right and I am allowed to use it fucking weasel.

>>14700458
lol prove it's right fag

>>14700457
No you go fuck yourself you ignorant fuckjng moron.

>>14700447
If I'm asking for the impossible then you're admitting it's impossible to prove your claim. Why did you you lie?

>>14700461
you homophobic, racist motherfucker. Why did you move from Zimbabwe to some white supremacist gated community. Fuck you

>>14700460
Show us 12000 rpm or accept the conclusion, weasel.

>>14700467
retard stop evading. You said the book is right, now you have to prove it.

>>14700463
I do not lie. You are in denial and asking me to calculate friction for a generic hypothetical example, retard.

>>14700068
>>14700472
Watch this https://youtu.be/QJiO2I9iUIY

>>14700465
You disgustingly prejudiced asshole. Why are you personally insulting me? Instead of addressing my paper you fucking loser.

>>14700472
Sir you used the wrong equation

>>14700469
You have to stop making false accusations, retard.

>>14700476
why did you move to a white supremacist gated community once the racist Rhodesian government collapsed? Fucking racist. Why didn't you stay in Zimbabwe fucing racist

>>14700478
see >>14700458
you claimed the book is right, so COAM is right

>>14700479
I was 12 you fucking disgusting personally attacking cunt.
Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM and stop being a nasty fuck.

>>14700483
you racist motherfucker. Imagine moving to a white supremacist gated community and seeing nothing wrong with it. Fuck you

>>14700482
No, you claimed the book is wrong, so you agree with my conclusion, retard.

>>14700487
you said the book is right, so COAM is right

>>14700487
No, you claimed the book is right, so you agree with my conclusion that COAM is right, retard.

>>14700483
Age doesn't matter. You are still a disgusting racist who abandoned his African brothers just because they're black. You will suffer for this, fucking racist

>>14700486
If I am racist or sexist or whatever. It does not change the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and you personally attacking me just because you are offended by the fact that Noether fucked up, is as bad as racism.

>>14700494
Stop hating on Noether you fucking mysoginistic RETARD

>>14700489
The book is right according to existing physics, retard. Fuck you with this evasive bullshit. Wtf is wrong with you?

>>14700472
>I do not lie.
You did, you already admitted you haven't seen any experiment in reality in which friction, air resistance and gravity are negated. Therefore your claim that reality disagrees is a lie.

>>14700494
You never disproved Noether's theorem, faggot

>>14700492
I am not racist. There is no racists in South Africa.
Stop the delusional personal attack and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14700499
so you agree COAM is right because you said you think the book is right.

>>14700499
COAM is right according to reality, retard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg

>>14700498
I hate anyone that has made a stupid mistake and fucked up humanities progress.

>>14700505
so why are my African brothers protesting against racism by farmers from gated communities like you? Fuck off racist

>My behavior is totally reasonable and transparent.
Why do you lie?

>>14700509
YOU HAVE NEVER PROVED NOETHER MADE A MISTAKE

fucking sexist

>>14700500
No, reality never has zero friction, so you are a retard in denial. Effectively claiming that all of science is wrong.

>>14700516
Reality has 0 friction in a black hole retard

>>14700514
I have proved that she is wrong about COAM. Which by definition proves she made a mistake, retard.

>>14700518
motherfucker show me when she said anything about COAM fucking sexist piece of shit. Sexism is not allowed on /sci/

>>14700517
COAM is not conserved in a black hole because it is not conserved in a ball on a string and the laws are universal, retard.

>>14700068
Read this, sir http://valle.fciencias.unam.mx/librosautor/Advanced_Calculus.pdf
last chapter is on physics. See why you are wrong.

>>14700519
The stop being sexist retard.

>>14700521
COAM is conserved in a black hole.

>>14700522
Appeal to tradition logical fallacy is unscientific, sir. Unless you fault my maths you have to accept the conclusion.

>>14700526
Sir read the book. 12000 rpm is disproved on page 523

>>14700516
>>14700521
there is no friction in space. retard.
>>14700521
COAM is always conserved in space because there is nothing to interact with, retard.

>>14700525
Nope. Not in a ball on a string. Not anywhere. Delusional claims based upon wishful thinking is unscientific.

>>14700074
Her name is in the filename

>>14700521
sir 12000 rpm falsifies the existence of black holes

>>14700531
COAM is always conserved regardless of what the voices in your head have told you.

>>14700528
Nope. Liar.
Address my paper or fuck off idiot.

>>14700531
Prove it mathematically

>>14700535
Address experiments that take friction into account or fuck off and dilate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg

>>14700534
Well then show us 12000 rpm, wishful thinking retard.

>>14700535
>>14700540
sir read page 523

>>14700540
sure, just go do the experiment in space instead of lying about friction, retard.

>>14700539
Any “experiment” that takes friction into account and can excuse 12000 rpm is delusional nonsense, retard.
Face facts and stop being a retard

>>14700544
so friction causes COAM?

>>14700545
Nope. Friction does not excuse a prediction of 12000 rpm. 12000 rpm is wrong and grasping at straws is unscientific.

>>14700544
speak English, African retard

>>14700544
You are delusional, retard.

>>14700546
this is wrong

>>14700543
I have chosen a centuries old traditional example which is always conducted in open air, retard. If you think doing it is space will show 12000 rpm the you need to back up your extraordinary claim. Otherwise accept the conclusion, like a grown up.

>>14700552
>conducted in open air
which is why you need to use the drag equation

>>14700541
Post the link again because it is buried in the bullshit here, sir. I will look and explain why you are wrong, since you totally neglect my proof and present red herring obviously.

>>14700285
>>14700289
wow OP btfo

>>14700553
Nope. Which is why you need to back up your claims and show us that roughly 12000 rpm is possible if you minimize drag. Making excuses is unscientific

>>14700556
here sir http://valle.fciencias.unam.mx/librosautor/Advanced_Calculus.pdf

>>14700558
Nope. Appeal to tradition logical fallacy does not falsify anything in my paper and is illogical as explained, circular retard.

>>14700566
see >>14700285
>>14700289
COAM is proven by Noether's Theorem. Please first falsify Noether's Theorem.

>>14700560
Look into celestial mechanics, sir. You will find a lot of asteroids colliding which increases their RPM to well over 12000rpm. They keep on spinning at 12000+ rpm until they hit something else. There is no friction sir

>>14700563
You must be an idiot. My paper falsifies existing physics so obviously existing physics contradicts my conclusion. That is why it is called appeal to tradition logical fallacy. How many times must I say the same thing over and over. Please stop going in circles? Wtf.

Reminder that this retard's delusions are rooted in not understanding how L = r x p works. p is just an analogy.
The real total linear momentum of an object spinning about its center of mass is always zero. Consider a rotating bolo space station; the cabin is moving at X m/s in one direction, and the counterweight is moving at the same speed in the opposite direction. If an astronaut grabs the cable and hauls in the counterweight, this causes the cabin to move in its current direction of motion, raising its momentum and therefore linear speed. As per the law of conservation of momentum, something must move in the opposite direction; since the astronaut is pulling on the counterweight, it is the counterweight that moves. The total linear momentum of the station has not changed, only the p component of its angular momentum.
John's theories cannot explain how such a setup would NOT violate the laws of motion if angular momentum were not conserved.
John will not be able refute this. He will just scream about muh paper as if reality cares about his delusions.

>>14700516
>No, reality never has zero friction
Then your math cannot be tested against reality. Fix it and add friction, air resistance and gravity.

>>14700570
Nope. If your argument has weight then I can say that Noether’s theorem is falsified by my proof. First falsify my proof.

>>14700566
Sir look at page 30 https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4757-2063-1
please falsify this

>>14700575
sir please explain which assumptions that Dr. Shlomo Sternberg assumes are wrong.

>>14700573
That is delusional nonsense moron. You have to show a ball on a string demonstration using similar parameters to my paper doing 12000 rpm or accept what is proven. Moron

>>14700577
also this is why the real formula is L = Iω.

>>14700581
You haven't falsified Nother's Theorem you delusional moron.

>>14700577
Reminder. You have failed to address my paper and are personally attacking me which means you are the loser. >>14700580
So your argument is literally that all of science is nullified. Wtf retard

>>14700589
>So your argument is literally that all of science is nullified.
No John, nothing I said implied that. Fix your math if you want to do science.

>>14700587
Noether’s theorem does not falsify my paper you deluded moron.

>>14700589
fucking called it lmao
your delusions aren't worth addressing until you stop lying about friction and pretending that "conservation of angular energy" doesn't violate conservation of linear momentum

>>14700591
My maths is perfect and you have failed to point out any error in it. making up imaginary errors is delusional

>>14700597
Your paper is falsified by conservation of linear momentum.

>>14700596
You have to falsify an equation in my paper, or accept the conclusion. Making up imaginary errors is retarded unscientific nonsense.

>>14700593
>>14700597
You never falsified Noether's Theorem you delusional faggot

>>14700560
>Making excuses is unscientific
That is literally all you are doing for your paper.

>>14700600
Your paper is falsified by conservation of linear momentum.

>>14700599
My paper can only be falsified by pointing out an equation number and explaining the error within it which stands up to rebuttal

>>14700600
it is refuted here see >>14700582

>>14700601
You have never falsified my paper you delusional faggot.

>>14700250
I've never seen a ball on a string experiment where the radius of the ball is reduced. Is there video proof of this experiment?

>>14700606
Sir, COAM was discovered first discovered by Kepler who observed Mars. Mars moves faster than 12000rpm. Your math is refuted Sir.

>>14700607
No, that is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and evades my paper. Circular retard.

>>14700606
Your paper suggests that "rotational kinetic energy" is conserved. This of course, violates conservation of linear momentum for obvious reasons addressed by >>14700577.

>>14700608
Noether's Theorem does as shown in>>14700285
>>14700289

>>14700589
>personally attacking me which means you are the loser
This is what you do in most of your replies, proving you are a loser.

>>14700611
No, Kepler was wrong because a ball on a string demonstration does not do 12000 rpm.

>>14700597
>My maths is perfect
Perfect for a world in which friction, air resistance and gravity don't exist. Not reality. The error is your claim that it's comparable to reality.

>>14700612
>>14700617
Sir read "b. Kepler's Law" on page 31. COAM was not discovered with a ball on a string experiment, it was discovered by Kepler who observed Mars in space (no friction). Can you falsify his observation?

>>14700615
No, that is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and does not falsify my paper. You have to point out an equation number and explain the error within it which stands up to rebuttal

>>14700616
Me responding to a personal attack does not make me the aggressor. Please address my paper and stop attacking me?

>>14700621
sir pls upload your paper on 4chan so I can point out the equation. On the bottom left of the message box there is a button called "Browse" where you can upload your paper.

>>14700621
>muh fallacies
fallacy fallacy
reality doesn't care about your delusions. you will never be a physicist, and you will never be a woman.

>>14700624
you are the racist who moved to a white supremacist gated community. You have no right to talk

>>14700619
No, my maths is perfect because you cannot fault it and therefore have to accept the conclusion.

>>14700632
he has faulted it though. Read the post

>>14700620
It makes no difference how it was “discovered”. It is falsified by a ball on a string demonstration.

>>14700624
you always make the personal attacks first, nigger NPC
don't dish it out if you're a whiny little bitch that has meltdowns every time someone on the internet insults you

>>14700624
I never said you were the agressor; an attack is an attck, regardless.

>>14700621
The error occurs before the equations.

>>14700631
Please stop personally attacking me and address my paper >>14700633
Nope. He has failed to point out an equation number and is grasping at straws. That is not a rebuttal that is unscientific nonsense.

>>14700642
post your equations

>>14700639
If I am being attacked, then it is unfair to accuse me of attacking the aggressor when I respond.

>>14700582
No. You falsify this. : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14700645
No, it is not unfair. You are the source of the quote.
You made the claim then promptly violated it. That is all on you.

>>14700647
friction.

>>14700644
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14700310
>so you have to do experiment
no u

>>14700068
>>14700642


Sir your paper is refuted in the book "The Theory of Complex Angular Momenta" by V. N. Gribov

>>14700649
It is totally unfair and it is literally personally attacking me in evasion of my work. Which is the definition of argumentum ad hominem which is considered really bad behavior since Roman times. Please stop being evasive?

>>14700655
Which equation number does it falsify?

>>14700351
>12000 rpm disagrees with reality

12000 rpm happens all the time, it's super easy, barely an inconvenience.

>>14700657
No, it is not totally unfair.
Next time you say you are going to walk the high road just walk the high road.

>>14700653
My mathematical physics paper is a proof. You have the burden of proof now.

>>14700657
>Please stop being evasive?
How am i being evasive?
You are being illigical.

>>14700665
12000 rpm disagrees with the reality of a ball on a string demonstration and you making delusional wishful thinking claims is unscientific nonsense.

>>14700674
You are refusing to address my paper which is the definition of evasive. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14700676
Your paper ignores reality... literally, it ignores reality.

>>14700668
It is extremely unfair and completely evades my paper. Argumentum ad hominem. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14700683
You neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM is literally ignoring reality.

>>14700681
I am under no obligation to even look at your paper, i never once agreed to.
So, logically, that is not evasion.

>>14700687
It is extremely unfair to call people retarded for understanding the fact that friction exists and yet cry "muh character attacks! ad hominem!" when someone retaliates. Fuck off hypocrite.

>>14700692
Experimental/theoretical conditions, motherfucker.

>>14700694
The fact that you imagine I am wrong by refusing to look at the evidence is by definition evasion.

>>14700422
>>14700409
>>14700577
>>14700597
>>14700599
>>14700596

He also has an argument based on energy. I think this is much more difficult to simply brush off

>>14700652
sir equation 3 misses the fact that r2 cannot be 0 which means that r1 cannot be 0.
Sir your conclusion is wrong because equation 21 and 25 are not true for open systems with friction.
The statement below equation 19 also is false since lack of friction is implied by equation 14.
Sir please redo the paper with the drag equations. This is a mess sir!

>>14700701
how so dumbfuck? This obviously is not applicable to an open system

>>14700700
I can't even comprehend what you read, dipshit.
Where did I say that I didn't read your paper?

>>14700699
Since my paper is theoretical, your argument is not an argument.

>>14700713
Sorry, that should start as "You can't even comprehend"

>>14700701
This is so fucking wrong it's laughable.

>>14700718
You are not addressing my paper, so whether you actually read it or not is irrelevant.

>>14700657
Equation 16 is wrong.

>>14700717
You can't be serious. Are you saying that because your paper is theoretical that your theoretical conditions don't have to be consistent?
Do you realize how fucking stupid that makes you look?

>>14700709
Well it must surely be applicable to the example that is described in the textbook that the equation comes from otherwise you are literally arguing that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong which is literally insane.

>>14700729
It's not. Angular momentum is not the same as linear momentum, yet you imply that in your braindead paper.

>>14700702
There is nothing missing about the radius and that is made up nonsense. Rather concede defeat that make up nonsense, sir. Otherwise you appear insane.

>>14700735
There is. If r1 is 0, then r2 is 0. In equation 3, you divide by r2. That means you are dividing by 0. You are so fucking dumb.

>>14700721
I'm under no obligation to actually address your paper.>>14700719

I am perfectly free to address anything that you post and boy do you post a lot of wrong shit.

>>14700733
Nope. I do not imply that at all. Making up your own version of my paper is called strawman logical fallacy.

>>14700736
Since r is never zero in the classic ball on a string demonstration, you make an argumentum ad stupidum. Which is plain unreasonable and unscientific.

>>14700743
No, dumbfuck. You still need to say r cannot be zero. This is a formal error in your paper.

>>14700738
Argumentum ad stupidum is unscientific. Are you trying to find truth or simply evade it.

>>14700739
You do by equating angular velocity with plain velocity.

>>14700744
Nope. This is a strawman logical fallacy argument. Which is evasive and unscientific.

>>14700701
It takes energy to make the ball spin up, but because of friction, it never reaches enough speed to require anywhere near that much energy to continue pulling the ball in.
(If you did the ball and string experiment, and tried to pull in the ball REALLY fast, you would feel a tremendous counter-force preventing you from pulling the string in.)

>>14700749
No, I do not and you are making up errors which you cannot point out in my paper which is called muddying the water and is unscientific.

>>14700745
Your paper is unscientific; therefore for your own logic you are engaging in argumentum ad stupidum.
Your words your argument your paper.

What the fuck is happening in this thread? Why is it almost at the bump limit? You fucking spergs can't seriously be this interested in this shit can you?

>>14700753
The law does not say that the ball will only do 12000 rpm if you yank hard enough. Your argument is nonsense.

>>14700761
They cannot defeat the truth and are in desperate denial of it.

>>14700757
False. Line 10, nigger.
>>14700762
Friction does. Your retarded idealized scenario is nonsense.

>>14700759
My paper is perfectly scientific and cannot be defeated. Making up stuff is literally denial.

>>14700757
I can point it out and I did so before, equation 10 uses linear momentum, but you are working with angular momentum, not linear momentum. The v needs to be a small omega instead and this omega is difference of the ANGLE divided by the difference of time, NOT difference of *DISTANCE*.

>>14700762
also if yanking hard enough is irrelevant to rpm, let me see you start a lawnmower by gently tugging on the ripcord.

>>14700770
That's not how it works. I've declared it unscientific therefore it is unrefutably unscientific you can't argue against that.

>>14700770
you imply angular momentum and linear momentum are the same in equation 10 and the following lines

>>14700632
See >>14700619

>>14700761
This is real science

>>14700701
M = 0.1kg
r1 = 1m
r2 = 0.1m
Tension in the string increases by a factor of 1000, from 0.157N to 157N

That's crazy.

>>14700775
>difference of the ANGLE divided by the difference of time

How is angular distance any different to line distance? What do you think radians were invented for?

>>14700809
It isn't, but John doesn't realize changing the radius to 1% of its original size only multiplies angular momentum by 100, not regular momentum (whose velocity would be angular distance/time as you pointed out). So energy does not increase by decreasing radius as John claims. There is a formula for rotational kinetic energy that is [math]\frac{1}{2} I \omega^2[/math] where I is the moment of intertia and [math]\omega[/math] the angular velocity.

>>14700807
>This is real science
it's not. Falsification of COAM would imply anisotropy of space which is retarded. You didn't find out anything novel.

>>14700831
COAM is false. Angular energy is conserved and the only reason you don’t accept that is because you simply refuse to measure a ball on a string or accept independent results. You literally neglect the evidence.

What will make you open your eyes and look at the evidence.

It is very simple I predict a ball on a string accurately and existing physics is wrong.

How much more obvious do you need than that?

>>14700846
your paper has been refuted hard this thread. You should be ashamed to make mistakes as simple as equating angular and linear velocity despite apparently working on this problem for 10 years. You are a fucking failure and retard. No wonder you never got anywhere. Go on and keep on ignoring the criticism directed towards your paper, though. You're the retard claiming we live in an anisotropic universe.
I should message your son on facebook to take care of your demented ass.

>>14700826
I claim that energy does not increase with decreasing radius, so you are literally agreeing with me and expose a full on engineering delusion and directly contradict the law of conservation of angular momentum. You literally make your calculations using my theory and contradict physics.

>>14700809
You are responding to an imposter who tries to make me look stupid. Scientists are so desperately trying to defeat me that they are taking extreme measures. That should show you that they are wrong.

>>14700856
>>14700862
Equation 16 is false as I pointed out previously since angular and linear velocity are not equivalent. You made a mistake so your reductio ad absurdum is invalid. There is no energy increase or decrease by virtue of which v1 and v2 are equivalent. The angular velocities are different, however, but they are not true velocities as they're d(angle)/d(time).

>>14700793
Why go in circles like a clown. If you cannot point out an equation and explain the error within it which stands up to rebuttal then you have to accept that my paper falsifies existing physics. By the book.

COAM is false.

If you think my book is wrong, then you agree with my conclusion that physics is wrong and my paper must be published with urgency because it is important.

>>14700780
Equation 10 is a referenced equation, so if you claim it is wrong then you agree with my conclusion that physics is wrong.

>>14700778
You have to point out an equation number and explain the error within it which stands up to rebuttal or accept the conclusion before you can declare anything. Otherwise you are just trolling.

>>14700880
you referenced the wrong equation. Look up the equation for rotational kinetic energy. That's the one to use, not the one for linear kinetic energy. It's a (You)-problem.
This is just sad, John. You've been working on this for 10 years and all of this is a misconception that arises from quoting the wrong equation. But go on and try to demonstrate the same "error" with the rotational kinetic energy formula.

>>14700420
This guy seems incredibly stupid

>>14700777
I did not say it was irrelevant to rpm, i said that physics says it is irrelevant to rpm because physics says that rpm depends upon conservation of angular momentum.

>>14700884
No, your paper is unscientific. I've said so.
It is unrefutable, pure logic.
Btw, you fucked up between your example and the equations. That you refuse to address this is evasion. That is not logical.

>>14700775
Equation 10 is a referenced equation, so if you claim it is wrong then you agree with my proof that physics is wrong.

>>14700895
I understand that. But you used the formula for kinetic energy when you should've used the one for rotational kinetic energy.

>>14700323
Let's ignore drag and friction - just pretend they don't exist. In the 1500s Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass. This can be quantified by simple kinematic equations. Yet if I drop a piece of paper and a textbook at the same time, the textbook hits the ground first. By your logic I have experimentally disproven all of classical mechanics.

>>14700768
If line 10 is false then you agree with my proof that physics is wrong.

>>14700900
No, you just referenced the wrong formula.

>>14700899
If you think we should account for drag and friction then you agree with my proof that physics is wrong.

>>14700891
conservation of angular momentum within a system depends that system not being acted upon by outside forces (e.g. friction)

>>14700907
Or rather agree on the fact that idealized formulas do not account for what happens on earth, a place that is not idealized, many times? What about that, John?

>>14700907
Perhaps, but it's nowhere to be found in your paper. Until you include it your predictions are incomplete and I can neither agree nor disagree with them.

>>14700898
It is acceptable for the given example and can be very easily derived from the one you suggest which was originally derived from it. Do I need to dig out the derivation and make you look foolish now. What game. Are you playing here. Stop muddying the water in denial and face the fact that COAM is false.

>>14700900
>>14700898
>rotational kinetic energy
Iw^2 =/= mv^2

Assuming a ball on a string is a point mass, how is a moment of inertia even possible?

>>14700907
>the law of conservation of momentum says an object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest, unless some outside force acts upon it
>outside forces can slow down objects in motion
>clearly all of physics is wrong!!!1! why didn't Newton account for friction?!!1!

>>14700920
E=1/2IW^2
I=mr^2
W=v/r
E=1/2(mr^2)(v/r)^2 = 1/2mv^2

>>14700923
My book provides the equations for my calculations. If you argue that my equations are wrong then you agree with my proof that physics is wrong.

Newton did not account for friction in theory because that is the defining thing about theory. We neglect friction.

>>14700914
If you think that my equations are wrong, then you agree with my proof that physics is wrong.

>>14700936
>if you think I'm wrong, then you agree with me
are you canadian john?

>>14700930
If John posted this, he should know he's supremely retarded since this refutes his entire gig.

>>14700912
You are not allowed to just make a random excuse and neglect a theoretical proof by reductio ad absurdum.
It is illogical. Are you trolling?

>>14700911
If you think that the classics demonstration is wrong then you agree with my proof that physics is wrong.

>>14700943
>>14700946
this doesn't follow from either. Are you drunk, John?

>>14700904
E=1/2IW^2
I=mr^2
W=v/r
E=1/2(mr^2)(v/r)^2 = 1/2mv^2

>>14700894
If you think that the example does not match the equations then you agree with my proof that physics is wrong.

>>14700934
exactly, the ball and string example doesn't refute conservation of angular momentum any more than sliding a chair across the floor refutes conservation of linear momentum
>>14700946
see >>14700923

>>14700930
Exactly. John says r2=0.01r1 and W2=100W1
So:
100W1 = v1 / 0.01r1
W1 = v1 / r1
In other words, no energy increase.

>>14700887
E=1/2IW^2
I=mr^2
W=v/r
E=1/2(mr^2)(v/r)^2 = 1/2mv^2
Why are you being dishonest?

>>14700943
I'll do whatever I want, you retarded schizo. No one owes you time of day.

>>14700869
Physics professors have told me straight that my maths is “100% right” and now you have managed all of a sudden to find a mistake in this basic substitution. Stop being a retard.

>>14700852
My paper has never been defeated and professors of physics have literally told me that my maths is “perfect”.
If the maths is right then the conclusion must be true.
All the retards abandoning rationality to avoid accepting the truth do not count as “refuted”. It counts as neglecting the evidence like flat earthen.

>>14700942
This shows that one equation is directly derived from the other and can be done back and forth so any claim that I should use the other equation is moronic. Why are you behaving g dishonest?

>>14700941
Please stop the adhominem. It is extremely unscientific.

>>14700943
fag

>>14700285
>>14700289
lol John is retarded

>>14700941
My paper is written by the book because I present existing physics. If you accuse me of have wrong equations then you are claiming that existing physics is wrong.

>>14700285
>>14700289
based

>>14700285
>>14700289
based.

>>14700285
>>14700289
highly based

>>14700285
>>14700289
John BTFO

>>14700285
>>14700289
don't even bother with fucking John

>>14700285
>>14700289
based

>>14700285
>>14700289
based.

>>14700285
>>14700289
based and true

>>14700941
Since I make a proof by reductio ad absurdum, my equations are the existing physics, by the book. If you believe my equations are wrong the. You agree with my proof that those very equations are wrong.

If that is Canadian then the Canadians are right.

You are agreeing with me.

>>14701026
reality doesn't care about your delusions
friction is real and its existence doesn't falsify conservation of anything, deal with it

>>14700955
>>14700960
>>14700963
>>14700978
>>14700982
>>14700992
>>14700996
>>14701026
see >>14700962

>>14700934
John, you can neglect some elements of physics when coming up with theory. When you neglect an element of physics and then claim that the result of a thought experiment doesn't fit with reality, then you're just being ridiculous. Your argument is that 12,000 rpm is way too high for reality, despite you admitting that you derive the number from pure theory and openly rejecting other elements of physics.

You might as well claim that Einstein's theory of relativity is fake because there's no way a water bottle could produce the energy of two hydrogen bombs.

>>14701034
pretty sure he has beef with Einstein too, actually

>>14700982
>professors of physics have literally told me that my maths is “perfect”.
prove it

holy fuck how have jannies not permabanned john yet? The retard belongs on /b/. He nearly baited me to waste my time arguing with him again and such trolling bait garbage shouldn't be on /sci/. Wtf jannies? I'll just add the MD5s to my filter now

>>14701042
If you disagree with the professor, you agree with his results

>>14701034
That's all he has, all he does. Creationists and other loons do the same thing.
>Have narcissistic personality disorder
>strawman a concept
>Reject all correction
>Exhibit total amnesia to prior correction
>Rewrite all prior correction to fit delusions of grandeur
Flat earthers, John, young earth creationists, on and on it goes. That basic series describes all of them. If you've ever wondered what the fuck is wrong with certain people, that is what the whole concept of "a personality disorder" describes. They can't be wrong because their whole sense of self is defined by certainty they must be right, and it does not matter how factually wrong they are. A flat earther could be flown into space and be convinced you've put him in the matrix because he can't be wrong.
>>14701064
>holy fuck how have jannies not permabanned john yet?
Welcome to /sci/ AKA /b/ 2.0.

>>14701064
>holy fuck how have jannies not permabanned john yet?
And I get a warning for making fun of nlab/category trannies

>>14701125
What especially struck me as odd is how John always repeats himself, almost verbatim. It's like talking with a robot programmed to give set responses based on the kind of words you post. You can go back years and see replies nearly identical in wording to those he (supposedly consciously) posted here today. This is why you can't even really discuss anything with him, it's really like talking with a bot.

>>14701125
Also I've noticed that most kooks of his kind, with the exception of flat earthers, like to compare everyone who isn't a kook to flat earthers
Also they tend to hurl insults at everyone who disagrees with them, because "they deserve it". But God forbid you call a kook a kook.

>>14701187
you can at least argue with flat earthers, they're not npcs who repeat the same thing over and over again
john is worse than a flat earther
There is a humungous amount of diversity in flat earthers' beliefs, btw. There's even a guy (Jake The Asshole / Flat Earth Asshole) who believes that the typical flat earth map is wrong since he was convinced by another youtuber.

>>14701186
>What especially struck me as odd is how John always repeats himself, almost verbatim.
Are you new to crazies? They do that a lot, like reciting a scripture. They fixate so much on something as part and parcel of their delusion talking to one of them is like talking to all of them, and they'll never deviate from any part of their script no matter what. Schizophasia is also part of narcissism, where if a narcissist is cornered they'll engage in speaking (or shouting) utter nonsense and contradictions to confuse and beat down people. Same goes for projection, emotional manipulation, and things like that. Exhibit A, >>14701186 .
>>14701211
>you can at least argue with flat earthers, they're not npcs who repeat the same thing over and over again
Uh yeah they are. Each one tends to be a part of some given "zeitgeist" in their own ingroups and parrot whichever the favored talking head in that group shares the most. Hence the joke asking who their "papa flerf" is, because in spite of proclaiming to be "independently minded" they parrot one another like sheep.

>>14701218
>Are you new to crazies?
I guess so. At least I haven't ever come across someone who always links people to the same document containing "refutations" when called out https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals
The cranks I have talked here with probably just weren't as ill as John, though I wonder what must happen to one to suddenly start doing such a thing in one's 40s. Mandlbaur didn't seem crazy before roughly 10 years ago, when he started this whole non-sense.

>>14701255
Please stop the adhominem and address my proof.

>>14701218
I repeat myself because you are going in circles. Please face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop the as hominem.

>>14701211
Please stop the adhominem. You are admitting you are the loser.

>>14701218
>>14701255
I should also note that John once said the reason why he fell down that COAM rabbit hole is him trying to come up with a perpetual motion machine for "several weeks, 18 hours a day". It's just so random.

>>14701187
Please stop the ad hominem and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. You are admitting you lose.

>>14701125
Can you even treat that with CBT? It seems like a heavy chemical imbalance.

>>14701186
Stop the personal attack, it is an admission that you are the loser. Loser.

>>14701140
For being personally attacked or what. Why should I be banned?

>>14701086
Point out an error or admit my maths is perfect.

>>14701289
Man if my dad suddenly became crazy like John I honestly wouldn't know what to do. Look at his personal facebook and it's full of this obsession. It's like a person dying in front of you and turning into some braindead ape.

>>14701064
I have presented my discovery and that offends you. You think I should be banned because people are offended by the truth or what?

>>14701218
Stop the #adhominem sir

>>14701042
Point out an error or accept that my maths is perfect.

>>14701314
obnoxious trolling outside of /b/

>>14701125
Do you have some books where you can read up on these disorders? I feel like my grandma is slowly turning crazy after her husband died a few months ago and I would like to help her.

>>14701037
Einstein was mistaken. That is not a beef. People make mistakes.

>>14701295
>NOOO you can't just laugh, you have to debate me!!!1!
t. every kook ever

>>14701335
sir stop the insanity. Are you mental?

>>14701281
you're going in circles. it has been explained to you over and over where the angular momentum is going, but you weren't programmed to understand the concept of friction.

>>14701034
It is necessary to derive the prediction from pure theory if one is to determine if the theory is right. If the centuries old demonstration does not match the predictions then the theory must be the culprit. The demonstration is repeatable, so should be well predicted with a good theory, like my theory which predicts it accurately.

>>14701125
Sir I was never diagnosed with any personality disorder in Rhodesia please stop the personal attack and address my paper.

>>14701033
This is totally stupid behavior, retard.

>>14701032
You are 100% right, you saying “friction” does not prove anything. My paper stands and you are simply neglecting the evidence like a flat earther.

12000 rpm objectively and inexcusably falsifies COAM.

>>14701352
>>14701350
>>14701349
>>14701344
>>14701339
>>14701333
>>14701329
>>14701325
>>14701321
>>14701314
>>14701308
>>14701295
>>14701288
>>14701281
>>14701271
>>14701359
watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEnklxGAmak&t=1420s

>>14701025
Appeal to tradition logical fallacy which is literally neglecting the evidence like a flat earther.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14701349
The prediction was that an object in motion will remain in motion unless an outside force acts upon it. your paper doesn't refute this, nor does the ball and string "proof".
>>14701359
>>14701364
friction exists, deal with it you delusional faggot

>>14701014
sir this is absolute insanity. Are you mental?

>>14701023
Appeal to tradition logical fallacy is or based. It is biased.

>>14701016
Why are you evading and not accept 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM?

>>14701019
Biased. And appeal to tradition logical fallacy. So actually, idiotic.

>>14701376
Why are you evading the fact that friction exists?

>>14701011
Stop the insanity and address my paper.

>>14701016
Appeal to tradition logical fallacy is as unscientific as can be. It is simply ignorance of the evidence.

>>14700978
>Physics professors have told me straight that my maths is “100% right
prove it

>>14701008
Appeal to tradition logical fallacy is illogical

>>14701086
prove it

>>14701385
Why do you ignore the mathematical proof that your "proof" is wrong?
Claiming "appeal to tradition" is not an argument and you know it.

>>14701005
Circles of appeal to tradition logical fallacy is evasive, that is not based.

>>14701393
it's based

>>14701001
Stop trolling

>>14700998
Stop trolling

>>14701406
Nope , logical fallacies are by definition irrational.

>>14701412
you should try posting your proof on >>>/pol/
they may accept it

>>14701400
If you can present maths which comes to a different conclusion than my maths and claim to defeat my maths then I can present my maths and claim to defeat your maths.

>>14701426
Do you think a statement can be both true and false at the same time?

>>14701391
Point out an error or accept what I have proven.

>>14701433
Show me proof of a professor saying your math is 100% correct.

>>14701381
I have never evaded that fact.
That fact does not falsify my paper.
You are literally claiming that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong which is not reasonable.

My paper is existing physics you can’t change physics after seeing my paper.

>>14701444
>That fact does not falsify my paper.
That can be proven, so prove it.

>>14701370
You saying “friction exists” is simply making an excuse and neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively and inexcusably falsifies COAM.

>>14701362
Stop the personal attack and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14701350
This is an impersonator. I am dumbfounded by this totally stupid childish behavior. This is professors of physics behaving like this. Wtf???

>>14701341
Stop trolling

>>14701372 (You)
retard

>>14701450
>everything that proves me wrong is just an excuse!!!1!

>>14701478
No, excuses do not prove 12000 rpm realistic.

>>14701461
get a fucking tripcode if you don't want people to impersonate you
i hope you kys you delusional, retarded waste of space

>>14701477
Stop trolling

>>14701461
>>14701466
>>14701483
>>14701433
>>>/pol/388396304
>>>/pol/388396304
>>>/pol/388396304

>>14701485
You are not trying to help me. You are trying to track me.

>>14701490
Stop trolling

>>14701488
people call you retarded, John
>>>/pol/388396569

>>14701496
hahahahaha what the fuck is wrong with you?
you thought i was trying to hack you when i linked to a twitter image
man you're fucking retarded
>trying to track me
that's the fucking point you retarded nigger
you don't want to be impersonated, do you?
i hope you didn't pass your dogshit genes on by having kids

>>14701501
Look even /pol/ says you're wrong >>>/pol/388396885
>>>/pol/388396885
>>>/pol/388396885

>>14701506
People who are in denial of the simple objective fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM are slandering me. Yes. So. Stop trolling asshole.

>>14701519
go tell them, John! Or else they will just shittalk you behind your back!

>>14701461
>This is professors of physics behaving like this
wat

>>14701516
You are trying to track me to make my life difficult and I have no interest in helping you.

>>14701524
there's a genuine professor apparently lurking here.

>>14701517
Please stop trolling. Argumentum ad populum is logical fallacy.

>>14701527
John, look at this post >>>/pol/388396885
Why not tell them they are wrong? Or are you afraid of getting destroyed again?

>>14701524
he thinks that everybody in this thread is a physics professor from some university who argued with him once
he's beyond saving, the most schizo person to visit this board in years
>>14701527
why do you post on twitter, john?
People can track you on twitter! Each tweet has your name attached to it. Only way to save yourself is to kys now!

>>14701532
Tell em John! >>>/pol/388397315

>>14701523
Hundreds of people are doing that all the time and I am only one person.

does kiwifarms know about this retard? I'll make a thread tmrw if one doesn't exist already

>>14701543
Another one shittalking you? Why not reply? >>>/pol/388397429

>>14701536
I have never been destroyed and I am not here to engage in your whims.

>>14701483
It would be, if you did a similar experiment where friction was reduced. You won't because you already know damn well that you're wrong.

>>14701546
they have though, look at the thread I linked

>>14701544
i'm not sure how much john can be milked, though
he's like a chatbot who's been saying the exact same nonsensical things for years
>>14701546
i'm going to milk your penis and drink your cum, john
do you want to see my willy? I'm sure it's much smaller than yours though~

>>14701538
No, I think that you are wanting to track me for a reason and are pretty desperate about it. And whatever it is is not for my interests. Retard.

>>14701546
Look at this, another professor shittalking you >>>/pol/388397759
respond to him!

is it illegal to be a homosexual in south africa?
is that why you keep acting so hostile and homophobic, john? It's okay to like cum, you know. Your mom liked cum.
>>14701559
why do you complain about people impersonating you, then? How do I know you're the real mandlbaur?

>>14701542
I’m not interested. Thank you.

>>14701546
how does it feel to know that even people on the special ed board know you're wrong?

>>14701545
Because I am here to talk science not idiot.

>>14701566
Afraid, huh?

I have understood my mistakes. I will no longer claim that COAM is false. Thank you for correcting me, /sci/! It has made me a truly better man, and I even found a cute boyfriend thanks to you guys. I am never going down the schizo path again.

>>14701567
It feels like I am on planet of stupids. How can anyone imagine that a ball on a string demonstration does do 12000 rpm?

>>14701571
Why are you afraid of /pol/ but not /b/?

>>14701577
Impersonating me is not reasonable behavior.

>>14701578
ask them boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/388396304

>>14701583
Delusions of grandeur are not reasonable, yet here (you) are thinking that friction disproves inertia.

>>14701578
look John, someone who might listen >>>/pol/388397817
why not tell him what's up?

>>14701577
I'm also trans now btw

>>14701579
I am not afraid of anything. I am a skydiver. I just don’t feel like wasting my time on trolling gay faggot idiots.

>>14701583
Would you please stop impersonating me? I'm John Mandlbaur and you are a mentally sick person. You're fucking sick, you know? Stop pretending like I'm not John Mandlbaur because I literally am John Mandlbaur. Look at my username.
This is not reasonable behavior, sir. You are a #pieceofrubbish.

>>14701590
Why the homophobia? Are you projecting?

>>14701584
I must go and ask the idiots why they are gay or what?

>>14701600
They dont know about 12000 rpm. Enlighten them with the truth. They don't know anything about science so they are not indoctrinated by 300 years of mindlessly accepting COAM

>>14701587
I have never claimed anything grand so you are the delusional one.

>>14701602
Why are you lying? >>14700068
>the “law” of conservation of angular momentum is falsified.

>>14701601
Stop harassing me

>>14701606
That is fact. Not grand.

>>14701607
look they even agree with you! boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/388396304#p388399258
This is how you will revolutionize science

>>14701590
/pol/ is the faster science channel. Check it out. You will get more people to look at your paper there

>>14701613
Stop harassing me

>>14701618
Stop harassing me.

>>14701612
Actually falsifying hundreds of years worth of physics would be very grand. The fact that you have failed to do so, makes it a delusion of grandeur. Deal with it, faggot.