/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14721301
you mean do photons have mass?

If light doesn't have mass then how do plants grow? Plants grow by absorbing sunlight, therefore light must have mass.

>>14721328
You are confused by the word "absorb". They don't actually "absorb" light like you would absorb water or so. Light rays supply certain parts with energy that trigger certain reactions, that's all.

>>14721301
In my findings, yes.
t.Logician

>>14721334
this. light just jiggles the little goobers in the plant cell that make sugar. just like how oxygen and sugar jiggles the little goobers in human cells to make ATP

>>14721350
sounds logical

>>14721334
They deliver vitamins. Light is literally packets of mass....a "photon" if you will.

>>14721364
post studies

>>14721301
Is momentum quantified and only can go in straight lines?

>>14721367

If light doesn't have mass then how is it affected by gravity?

>>14721334
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Light-dependent_reactions
>In the light-dependent reactions, one molecule of the pigment chlorophyll absorbs one photon and loses one electron. This electron is taken up by a modified form of chlorophyll called pheophytin, which passes the electron to a quinone molecule, starting the flow of electrons down an electron transport chain that leads to the ultimate reduction of NADP to NADPH. In addition, this creates a proton gradient (energy gradient) across the chloroplast membrane, which is used by ATP synthase in the synthesis of ATP. The chlorophyll molecule ultimately regains the electron it lost when a water molecule is split in a process called photolysis, which releases oxygen.

>The overall equation for the light-dependent reactions under the conditions of non-cyclic electron flow in green plants is:

2 H2O + 2 NADP+ + 3 ADP + 3 Pi + light 2 NADPH + 2 H+ + 3 ATP + O2

The photon is absorbed completely, its gone. The plant does not reemit it, it doesn't reemit lots of weaker photons at longer wavelengths, the plant eats the photon completely and it gains mass in doing so. If a photon has no mass then the plant is converting what other aspect of the photon into mass? can you convert energy into matter? don't give me that bullshit about smashing gamma rays together.

>>14721392
Warped spacetime?

>>14721301
Yeah the smallest possible unit of light is aproximatey 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
Grams

>>14721408
The concept of warped space time assumes from the beginning that light has no mass, so it cannot be evidence for it.

>>14722013
But gravity does not affect photons, spacetime warped by gravity is bending light, photons need no mass for that.

>>14722374
We assumed that light has no mass and then made an imaginary theory based upon that and now when faced with a simple fact that light has mass as is understood by biologists because that’s how plants grow, you imagine you can claim that your nonsensical theory somehow provides evidence of the imaginary claim that light has no mass because your theory agrees with its own premiss. Your reasoning is circular. You are simply wrong.

>>14722394
low iq post

>>14722609
Well your argument is an even lower iq personal assault which is nothing other than an argumentum ad hominem.
Go and troll somewhere else you uneducated dimwit.

>>14722639
cringe anti-intellectualist nonsense. Read this https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-48873-8

>>14722645
Hmmm. Nice red herring.

>>14722786
I have won.

>>14722374
That's stupid. So if I hire an assassin to slit your throat, I had no effect on your death?

>>14722790
Yea you win. The asshole of the year award. Light still has mass, so your career is probably down the drain. Unless of course you face up to the fact that all the evidence confirms that light has mass. Then maybe you can, with a little work, of course, make historical advances in physics.
You didn’t make the discovery, but you sure as hell can’t imagine it away just because you are jealous and it’s better to be at the forefront of scientific revolution.

>>14722805
>Yea you win
I accept your concession, John. Now stop schizoposting and read the book I posted. Your understanding of biology is laughably terrible.

>>14721301
light is made out of particles and particles have mass.
btw there is not such thing as mass, it is all frequencies

>>14722807
So you accept that you are the asshole then. Excellent, we agree on something.

>>14722821
Riiiight. And angular momentum is conserved too. Hey?

>>14722885
>>14722888

It has energy E=MC2 just calculate the mass

>>14722889
he should fix his teeth

>>14721301
Just another amazing discovery by the genius John Mandlbaur.

>>14722889
Who is that ugly fucker?

>>14722895
John Mandlbaur aka the 12000 rpm schizo

>>14722898
>schizo looks and talks like an insane homeless guy
Checks out.

>>14722891
Nope. Light has actual genuine mass, gravity attracts mass, not mathematical construct. The reason you have to construct pseudo-mass to make your theory work is because light has actual mass. You are presenting evidence which supports my claim that light has mass. Thank you.

>>14722904
Gravity bends spacetime. Its not mass attracting mass.

>>14722904
write a paper about that too!

>>14722894
Please point out where he has ever claimed himself a genius?
Why do you make up these delusional little stories?
Are you uncomfortable facing new ideas?

>>14722915
>Mandlbaur refers to himself in third person to avoid getting banned for ban evasion
hearty kek

>>14722898
What makes him a schizo? The fact that you can’t defeat his paper?

>>14722917
see >>14722916

>>14722917
>What makes him a schizo?
Undiagnosed schizophrenia.

surprised john even knows how to change his IP given how retarded he is.

>>14722902
Have you considered the way that people have been talking at him?
Poor guy has been taking crap for years because people are personally insulting him because they can’t face the truth.

>>14722924
he's probably on his phone

>>14721301
Good job John, you're a fuckin retard

>>14722908
Yes, keep telling yourself that fantasy.

>>14722902

>>14722928
>because they can’t face the truth.
Yeah that's why. Definitely not because he's a textbook lolcow.

>>14722909
So you can neglect it like you have failed to defeat or address all his other indisputable papers.

>>14722921
And you are qualified to make that diagnosis based on a few insulting responses to his work on the internet or are we observing Dunning Kruger effect.

>>14722951
Ten years of conversations are more than enough for a diagnosis.

>>14722942
No, just so he can spend another decade arguing with redditors over meaningless garbage while I and other stringist truly revolutionize physics.

>>14722940
Nope. Your delusional excuses to neglect 12000 rpm do not count as anything. Angular momentum cannot possibly be conserved because 12000 rpm does not happen in reality and nobody has ever seen this common example show any hint of massive increases in energy. I am sorry, but COAM is total bullshit.

>>14722931
oh yeah good call. that makes sense.

>>14722394
>photosynthesis means light has mass
Holy shit, you are even more retarded than Mandlbrau.

>>14722968
As long as you are an angular momentum conserver, you will only make yourself look stupid, since it has been objectively falsified.

>>14722989
What if I told you they are the exact same person?

>>14722989
This forum is for discussion of science, retard. Trolling is not acceptable behavior.

>>14722997
I wouldnt be particularly surprised.
Hey John, I hope a nigger rapes your family to death. Not a call to action just saying.

>>14722990
No worries, John. I am working on a string theory wherein COAM is falsified just for you

>>14723000
imaging chimping out that hard because someone disagrees with your pet scientific theory. you must be frustrated to the point of apoplexy because of your own inability to assert the correctness of your pet theories.

>>14722982
>common example show any hint of massive increases in energy
Yeah, just like how when the angular energy of a satellite orbiting Earth an an elliptical orbit is constant, right?

>>14723024
Absolutely. That is why we have such a thing called the orbital prediction error. We could be much more accurate if we listen.

>>14723014
No. I just find it incredibly fucking annoying when uneducated, unqualified boomers start acting like they alone have discovered the truth. Its an insane level of narcissism to believe you are right and tens of thousands of physicists are wrong. I don't like narcissists, John.

>>14723004
That is like trying to fix a faulty foundation by building a wobbly skyscraper on top of it.

>>14723042
Is there two John’s now?

>>14723042
>still chimping out
how long will this tantrum in defense of memorized textbook content carry on? you're still haven't demonstrated the first hint of interest or ability to engage on this topic in scientific terms, the fact that you can't do so it the source of the cognitive dissonance thats angering you.

>>14723036
Then that would cause a massive increase in total energy as gravitational potential energy is converted into angular energy. Also, such a mistake would not cause minor variations in predictions; it would make every satellite in an elliptical orbit useless (hint: they do things) and completely throw off missions like the Moon landings.

>>14723054
Why would I engage an uneducated boomer scientifically? Its not like Mandlbaur or his boomer supporters actually understand science.

>>14723074
The prior two moon missions crashed into it. Imagine that. Your own prophecy about theory of COAE has already been fulfilled historically. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that COAE is right.

>>14723079
Nooo, every physicist in the world is wrong, don't you see? The boomer who sells employee time clocks from his 90s-tier website is the only one who knows anything about angular momentum.

>>14722951
>Dunning Kruger
A schizophrenic AND a Redditor? Your life must be hell.

>>14721301
>>14721311
Does electricity have mass? Does my phone weigh less when the battery runs out?

>>14723049
There are at least 2 anons LARPing as John, one of them does a much better job than the other.

>>14723079
>The prior two moon missions crashed into it
What are you talking about? Putting aside the fact that just reaching the Moon with the "false" assumption that angular momentum is conserved would be like a blind man solving a Rubix cube, the only things that crashed into the moon during the Apollo program were intentionally crashed there. What you need to explain to me is why conservation of energy is false, or how rotational kinetic energy can be conserved while gravitational potential energy changes without violating conservation of energy.

>>14722982
>Your delusional excuses to neglect 12000 rpm do not count as anything

Okay faggot, lets get Honda on the line to explain how their engines somehow don't violate the stupid bullshit you dreamed up in your non-experiment thought experiment. Lets call Lockheed Martin up and have them laugh hysterically at you. Or hey..maybe not. Maybe they'll offer you a job designing their next Physics violating aircraft.

>Angular momentum cannot possibly be conserved because 12000 rpm does not happen in reality

So now you're literally saying that your stupid thought experiment can't happen in reality and that's why it violates laws that describe reality. Thank you very much you retarded polish psychic, we already knew about the past though.
By the way you're wrong, a T50 supercar already does this and no Back-to-the-Future shit happens.

>>14723077
your own inability to explain what you know shows that you do not understand physics. you are angry because your presumed knowledge is not equal to the task of dismissing that which contracts your textbooks on a rational basis. if you had the understanding that you claim then seeing contradictions would not instigate your chimpouts

>>14723122
low IQ post.

>>14723122
Mandlbaur uses proper capitalization and no 4chan colloquialisms. I'd also emphasize the 12000 rpm line. Either you're a really shitty imitator or the schizo has finally found a disciple; I'm not really sure which one is more pathetic.

>>14723122
Please explain why anyone should take anything an employee timeclock salesman says about physics seriously, let alone believe him over actual physicists who spend their whole lives studying the subject.

>>14722795
Correct, you donated money to a non-profit. What the organization did, of their own accord, is none of your concern.

>>14723121
>This doesn't exist according to boomer schizo
Boomer schizo outdoes a formula one racecar designer with one thought experiment everyone!

>>14723136
>Please explain why anyone should take anything a patent clerk says about physics seriously, let alone believe him over actual physicists who spend their whole lives studying the subject.
Let's not inadvertently give him more unwarranted self-importance shall we? All you have to do is laugh.

>>14723138
To many layers of irony.

>>14723136
>employee timeclock salesman
patent office wagie, bicycle shop owner, etc.

>>14723173
>Really wants to be compared to patent bitches who sat on their ass and did fuckall.
Sure thing, here's another idol we should compare you to. Problem for you is they still require something that's eligible to patent and "12000 rpm theoretical nothing" isn't useful.

>>14723099
>Does electricity have mass?
Electrons* have mass, we don't know why, yes your phone technically weighs less but to such a small degree that you wouldn't be able to measure the difference with any conventional scales.

>>14722394
>that’s how plants grow
The mass of the plant comes primarily from air and soil. Not light.

>>14723136
Because 12000 rpm is what those “physicists” are pushing and the prediction of 1200 rpm is accurate so you are stupid to listen the ones who are wrong and making excuses. In fact it is unscientific. The scientific method is to reject the theory which makes bad predictions and adopt the accurate theory.

>>14723133
You are the pathetic one. Your cognitive dissonance causes you to insult people instead of addressing the argument. Please stop behaving so badly.

>>14722374
>spacetime warped by gravity is bending light
But that's no different to gravity affecting photons, you're just replacing gravity with spacetime

>>14723099
Technically yes because the energy stored in the chemical bonds inside the battery would appear as actual physical mass. Nothing to do with electrons because you still have the same number of electron mass in the battery whether it's charged or discharged.

>>14723257
Meant to say >Nothing to do with electron mass

>>14723253
Newtonian gravity works to a degree, but you need to upgrade to spacetime for accuracy.
So yes, there is a difference.
Also, Newtonian gravity doesn't require photons to have mass, so what are you even talking about?

>>14723275
But spacetime is just a mathematical set of coordinates to describe the physical observations of space and time respectively, despite both having no measurable corporeal form, when gravity and its interactions can be observed at all times.
>Newtonian gravity doesn't require photons to have mass, so what are you even talking about?
What does this have to do with a photons mass, what are you even talking about? Or are you assuming that gravity can't affect light simply because it has no mass, which is a completely baseless assumption.

>>14723275
The fact that light is affected by gravity is direct, simple and clear empirical confirmation that light has mass.

>>14723331
>What does this have to do with a photons mass
I'm talking about photons being affected by gravity of course.
>The fact that light is affected by gravity is direct, simple and clear empirical confirmation that light has mass.
Except it isn't unless you assume a certain model of gravity to be correct (which we know it isn't).

>>14723367
>The fact that light is affected by gravity is direct, simple and clear empirical confirmation that light has mass.
Except it isn't unless you assume a certain model of gravity to be correct (which we know it isn't).

>>14723416

The reason everythings so confusing and doesn't check out; does light have mass, what is mass, what is charge, how does charge work, is everything a field, is everything a wave particle, how does light travel so fast and only ever, how are there so many fundamental different things perfectly seperate and perfectly interacting, is literally because God made the Universe.

All this clusterfuck of complex intricate chaotic complicated sci Fi perfection could not be natural, it would be so much easier to figure out if it was made without intelligent intent.

The elements, atoms... Really... star systems, what can come of their interactions. Sheesh. Dont get mad at me, none of you fools were saying anything of note

>>14723563
>The reason everythings so confusing is literally because God made the Universe.
>Dont get mad at me, none of you fools were saying anything of note

>>14723563
>is literally because God made the Universe.
Source : My ass

>>14723257
>energy stored in the chemical bonds inside the battery would appear as actual physical mass
How? Shouldn't H2O equal to 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen?

>>14723563
>le god of le gaps
>I fuckin love soience and jesus

>>14723195
Wow, that went right over your head.

>>14723253
what if i told you that gravity is spacetime

>>14723479
i still don't get why people seethe about this, if all the other numbers are right then there has to be a dark number in there

>>14723257
If a capacitor that does not change mass when being discharged has some interesting ramifications.

>>14724005
>i still don't get why people seethe about this, if all the other numbers are right then there has to be a dark number in there
Or the model itself is faulty.
The Ptolemaic model lasted centuries longer than it should have because astronomers just kept adding more epicycles to make things fit.

>>14724053
while a faulty model could explain dark energy, it couldn't reasonably explain dark matter, since observations show that dark matter has a discrete existence and location

>>14721392
Because it does have momentum. Gravity takes some of its momentum, causing the light's path to curve. And since light is massless, it gets redshifted instead of slowing down.
>>14722013
The fact that light has no mass is proven by the fact that it always travels at the same velocity in every reference frame.

>>14724090
The filamentary nature of the observation we call dark matter mirrors what is seen in high voltage electromagnetic impulses perfectly.
The implication is that dark matter can likely be solved using electromagnetism rather than some new undetectable billiard ball.

>>14724159
the particulars of how that would even work, that's not the issue, whether gravity or electromagnetism are causing its filamentary nature doesn't change the problem that it's unobserved, besides causing gravitational phenomena

if anything, making it about electromagnetism just adds one additional step of complexity without solving anything, since filaments are explained by any sort of attractive force

>>14724159
There has never been a theory that eliminates the need for dark matter. Electric universe theory fails just like all the others.

>>14724170
It's simpler than you think; you start with the formulas used to derive dielectric breakdown in air (predominantly branches based on applied frequency) and solve it for larger systems.
The 'unobserved' part is obvious since cold plasmas are already well understood; they're simply ion interaction that is below the threshold for photon emission.
You just scale up all the factors, with relativistic motion creating the fundamental Unipolar Faraday charge in a star.

But such a thing would require an astronomer that was comfortable with practical electrical dynamics so we'll probably have to wait another generation or two

>>14724175
>Electric universe theory fails just like all the others.
EU hasn't been seriously attempted; hence the predominantly qualitative observations vice quantitative.

>>14724248
it also has no more evidence than a gravity-based dark matter, and it's still one step more complicated

>>14724292
>it also has no more evidence than a gravity-based dark matter
There's no mechanism by which gravity-based dark matter forms threads/filaments, whereas this is common and expected in electrodynamics.
The same goes for polarity; gravity does not have a dipolar configuration while magnetism does.
The structural evidence is overwhelming.

>>14724306
>There's no mechanism by which gravity-based dark matter forms threads/filaments
yes there is, it's called gravity

>The same goes for polarity; gravity does not have a dipolar configuration while magnetism does.
so what?

>>14724306

>>14724249
COAM has not been tested for the same reason

>>14724307
>>There's no mechanism by which gravity-based dark matter forms threads/filaments
>yes there is, it's called gravity
Gravity forms clumps, not filaments.
A dielectric field is required on a conductive medium in order to form filaments.

>>14724175
There is now. Dark matter is a direct result of our unwavering belief in conservation of angular momentum. Since there is a new theory which claims that angular energy is conserved and said theory is independently confirmed, dark matter is resolved.
It is only scientific denial which prevents dark matter from being totally eliminated.

>>14724342
no, a purely attractive force also forms filaments

>>14724159
Dark matter is solved by adopting conservation of angular energy and abandoning conservation of angular momentum because COAM is falsified.

>>14724092
Redshift does not require or support the false claim that light has no mass. You are grasping at straws.

>>14724090
Nope. Observation show that reality does not match the theory. That is simple confirmation that the theory is wrong.

>>14724005
The numbers are wrong. That is why we think we have dark matter. But we are making a mistake. The numbers are wrong because our theory is wrong.

>>14724004
I would say that you are clinging to the traditional theory and refusing to be open minded.

>>14723416
The reason we have assumed gravity to be incorrect is because we expect that angular momentum is conserved and it isn’t.

>all these anons calling him schizo and engaging in ad-hominem
>his paper has still yet to be refuted
It's pretty simple, either you can defeat the argument presented in the paper, or else admit you're wrong. The experiment uses mathematical proof that modern physics has made a mistake, but still you are all too cowardly to admit that, so you insult Sir Mandlbaur. Shameful and unscientific. The only reason he yells if because he won't let others bully him.

>>14724354
>the """false""" claim that light has no mass
If light had mass then it wouldn't travel at the speed of light, retard.

>>14724357
>>14724360
wrong, there is no theory of dark matter, dark matter is just a name for a set of observations

>>14723563
>perfection could not be natural, it would be so much easier to figure out if it was made without intelligent intent.
Actually if it was made without intelligent intent, it would be less likely any stable orderly system would come about, and if concious did by chance come about, it would likely not be able to know or understand much about the swirling cocophonic mess of chaos that would be the absolute disordered state

>>14724092
Light has no mass for the same reason sound waves have no mass.

Air is a thing with mass; a sound wave is not a thing with mass, it is the motion of the airs mass. It is mass in motion,

A sound wave is not attracted by gravity because it is a run away chain reaction of an equilbrium seeking energy state.

Virtual photons have mass, the EM field has mass, light is a runaway chain reaction of the EM field. This cannot be slowed down and held in your hand. Just like an ocean wave cannot be slowed down and held as an object.

There is mass, then an uncontrollable chain reaction motion of mass;
Light is the latter.
Light is an unslowable motion like soundwaves and ocean waves;
If you stop it you destroy the wave

>>14724434
The fact that light is affected by gravity confirms that it has mass.
Sound waves are not attracted by gravity because as you correctly state, they have no mass.

>>14724408
Nope. It is a name for the discrepancy between what is expected based upon our belief in COAM and reality which does not conserve angular momentum.

>>14724400
Well then It does not travel at the speed of light, obviously.

>>14724434
Light is vibration between objects; not the objects itself

Consider a Newton's Craddle

The steady state metal spheres are like the EM field (funny that virtual photons are more stable and present objects than photons but their called virtual)

When one is set into motion, the energy exchange between them, is what EM radiation is.

The last metal sphere on the chain, pops out with energy; that would be when a photon finally hits a particle or electron and pops it with it's energy.

>>14721301
I might have skipped some physics class, did these retards claim that the electromagnetic radiation has no mass? Nothing is radiating, but it's all good? kek

>>14724460
low IQ post

>>14724453
If outerface was full to the brim with atmosphere; the sound waves would warp, where there would be very altered density and pressure due to gravity field warp; the atmosphere would follow that gravity field warp, as it is a flowing active 4d medium motion.

Things aren't standing still;

But either way, the analogy works on one comparison that doesn't mean it works on every; a duck and foam both float, that doesn't mean everything about them is the same.

So disregard my attempt to shoehorn another similarity.

The similarity enough, is that sound wave, and EM wave, are not objects, but a chain reaction of the motion of a medium of objectness.

The air medium is in other ways different from the EM medium. Maybe air waves wouldn't bend in curved gravity field.

Maybe something about lights mode of propagation and intimate relation to the gravity field forces it to do such.

Maybe the speed makes little change in density act.

Something about different types of waves, scalar, polarizable,

>>14724396
The paper has been refuted multiple times.

>>14724453
If outerface was full to the brim with atmosphere; the sound waves would warp, where there would be very altered density and pressure due to gravity field warp; the atmosphere would follow that gravity field warp, as it is a flowing active 4d medium motion.

Things aren't standing still;

But either way, the analogy works on one comparison that doesn't mean it works on every; a duck and foam both float, that doesn't mean everything about them is the same.

So disregard my attempt to shoehorn another similarity.

The similarity enough, is that sound wave, and EM wave, are not objects, but a chain reaction of the motion of a medium of objectness.

The air medium is in other ways different from the EM medium. Maybe air waves wouldn't bend in curved gravity field.

Maybe something about lights mode of propagation and intimate relation to the gravity field forces it to do such.

Maybe the speed makes little change in density act.

Something about different types of waves, scalar, polarizable,

>>14724471
Nope. Grasping at straws and neglecting the paper is not a synonym for “refuting”.

>>14724472
Wishful thinking speculation is unscientific.

>>14724468
It does not take a high iq to recognize that if light has mass then it cannot travel at the full theoretical speed of light. So you saying “low iq” to everything is totally stupid neglect. Grow up retarded child.

>>14724461
I believe that light is two particles interacting in a wave like manner.

>>14724502
Point out the first line in my post you believe is inacurate. And say why you think that. At least give me a chance to show you why your wrong; show me why you think I'm wrong.

It is not speculative. It is the scientific explanation distilled into plain terms

>>14724506
Your argument is lacking; because light speed is tautalogically defined as being that which light travels at, and light has no mass.

There is nothing in that, that suggests it's impossible that your declaration and definition is false; and that light has some miniscule amount of mass and travels light speed; and if it were popular for something to exist without mass, it could possibly travel faster.

Just choose the fastest thing; compared it to the slower down of things, made the word mass to point to the things the slower down of things slows down;

The slower down of things doesnt slow down light, so light is not mass

Light moves very very a million verys fast.
Maybe it's just too fast for gravity to slow down.

Or no best yet and most likely;

The light field is coupled to the gravity field intimately, possibly 2 sides of the same coin; The Electro-Magnetic-Gravito field;

And no shit light bends with curved gravity field, because light is a material component of the gravity field itself.

>>14724528
Wrong. Read Landau and Lifshitz Vol 2

>>14724528
>The light field is coupled to the gravity field intimately, possibly 2 sides of the same coin; The Electro-Magnetic-Gravito field;
>And no shit light bends with curved gravity field, because light is a material component of the gravity field itself.

>>14724456
Kepler's 2nd law proves COAM

>>14724529
Mass is defined in relation to gravity and light speed.

There is nothing in this that suggests light may not have a miniscule amount of mass. Just the convineience to start a spectrum scale of counting at a nice even 0.

What would throw off theory so much if light had 0.000...(10^9999999999999999 0's)...1 grams of mass?

>>14724529
>>14724502
Air has mass. Moving air is a sound wave. Why doesn't moving air have mass+movement (relativistic mass)
(Ahhhh, because sound wave isn't just s cluster of air atoms moving from point a to point be; it's a newton's craddle like passing the vibration down the line)

Em field has mass;. Moving em field is simply not light; as magnets can move magnetic fields and that's not purely em radiation.
Light is a newtons craddle transfer of vibration down the line of the network of EM fields.

>>14724544
Your argument against sound waves does not address the simple obvious fact that light has mass as is independently confirmed by experiment showing that light is affected by gravity.

>>14724548
John shut the fuck up.

>>14724515
It is totally unsupported speculation.

>>14724549
Proof by intimidation has always been considered good science. Nutcase.

>>14724564
The nutcase is the brainlet too retarded for Riemannian geometry

>>14724572
The nutcase is the one who thinks he can shift to a different geometry standard and imagine that justifies neglecting evidence like a flat earther.

>>14724578
It's not a different geometry standard.

>>14724579
Well it is evading the evidence like a real flat earther

>>14724581
False, again.

>>14724582
Fact. Face the fact that 1000000% is false and therefore COAM is false and stop weaselling by trying to suggest that you are more clever. More clever is not the same as right.

>>14724586
Stick to classical mechanics. You're far too retarded for even the basics of relativistic mechanics.

>>14724544
>magnets can move magnetic fields and that's not purely em radiation
When the flow of em radiation is blocked, magnetic fields can't spread. Why?

>>14724588
Relativistic mechanics is nonsense because the classical mechanics which it is premised upon is false. Stop trying to fix a bad foundation by building a wobbly skyscraper on top.

>>14724594
Not really.

>>14724598
A absolutely 100% falsified. You neglecting the evidence does not change the fact.

>>14724602
Again, you don't understand what relativistic mechanics claims.

>Light has mass

Big if true, since this means protons decay.
But I typed "John Mandlbaur" into google and instead of announcements of scientific discovery I got a twitter that has heaps of posts and no likes or retweets.

>>14724603
Again, relativistic mechanics is false so why would anyone bother trying to understand a false thing?

>>14724604
So you think that argumentum ad populum is good science?
Retard.

>>14724618
John, stop trying to branch out into relativity when you're already too retarded for classical mechanics.

>>14724620
Stop going in circles clown.
>>14724615

>>14724615
>>14724623
>no argument
>just empty claims
this board is dead

>>14724625
Do you think that your personal insults are deserving of a response in the form of “argument” you piece of shit.
You wish this this board is dead retard.

>>14724643
No, I am glad to tell you I already know of an alternative to /sci/ that you don't know about (and don't worry, I will make sure to never tell you), so have fun on this sinking ship.
In the end, you dabbling in relativity is boring because you clearly lack the math skills and most likely spatial intelligence necessary for that. At least in classical physics you were able to concoct nonsensical formulae that made your schtick at least a tiny bit entertaining. But this? Well this is just you huffing your farts over off-topic philosophical comments that you probably thought sounded smart, but in reality, aren't really. Remember the following:

Math: Formative attempts at understanding great and real things, such as the laws which govern our existence and the invisible nuance of the working of reality.

Philosophy: Breathtakingly extensive and elaborate exposition from meaningless principles, the spiritual equivalent of taking a shit and praising the crap as something more than just crap.

>>14724618
Mr. Mandlbaur, I am referring to any kind of legitimate test that can be replicated in a scientific setting. If a member of 4chan solved one of the unsolved problems of physics, not only would this be so monumental as to earn a Nobel prize but the feeling alone of living in a time period where this question was solved would be exhilarating.

>>14724656
Fuck off with the personal attack retard.
If you are incapable of scientific discussion then go to a moron forum. Stop wasting everyone’s time on /sci/.

>>14724670
Every legitimate test, starting with the basic ball on a string demonstration and going through the entire scientific repertoire of ice skater, ballet dancer, diver, prof on a turntable or student on a swivel chair, when measured confirms that angular energy is conserved and falsifies COAM.
Scientists refusing to measure for fear of having to face the truth and accept that their excuses are bullshit does not count as evidence. Retard.

>>14724670
You are living in the exhilarating period but are in denial of it.

>>14724670
Btw , my name is anonymous.

>>14724589
>When the flow of em radiation is blocked, magnetic fields can't spread. Why?
What do you mean by this?

So are you saying the forces of electric and magnetic fields is purely photons?

2 Magnets attract snd repulse via photons and photons only?

>>14724688
What's the difference between angular energy and angular momentum

>>14724589
In what way do magnetic fields spread when they are not blocked, and what are the methods by which they are blocked?

Are you saying, some magnets cannot attract through thick material? What does that have to do with what I said? What are you getting at?

>>14724709
Angular energy is defined as rotational kinetic energy, except that it is conserved instead of angular momentum. In simplest of terms, L = r x p, physics claims L2 = L1 and I say that p2=p1 when the r is altered in a reasonable conservative manner.

>>14724683
retard

>>14724866
Fuck you.

>>14724656
>Math: Formative attempts at understanding great and real things, such as the laws which govern our existence and the invisible nuance of the working of reality.
I'm going to disagree with you here on principle. Mathematical objects and reality aren't the same thing, don't mistake the map for the territory.

>>14724899
There's no point to distinguish between "reality" and the "mathematical world" as long as we cannot rigorously define "reality"

>>14724903
Yeah, you are right about that. I saw my mistake the moment I hit post.

>>14724528
>Your argument is lacking
Oh shut the fuck up, you pretentious twat

>>14724850
Keep on ignoring Noether's theorem and the 15 billion refutations in previous threads, you fucking twat.

>>14724965
You saying “Noether” is not an argument assshole. It amounts to neglecting the evidence like a flat earther.
The fact is that any measurement confirms my discovery and you saying “But but but nobody is listening” does not make me wrong. Ignoramus.

YOUR MOTHER IS SO FAT SHE'S 5000 KM ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE PLANE GIFTING LIFEGIVING LIGHT TO THE WORLD

>>14724988
It is an argument.

>>14724992
It is about as scientific as a flat earther claiming that since Australians don’t have their heads under water, the earth is not round.

>>14725030
Idiotic analogy that makes no sense in this context. Go on and tell me what you think Noether's theorem is.

>>14725048
“Noether’s theorem” does not point out false premiss or illogic within the paper you attempt to contest, so it is a flat earther style argument

>>14725073
Again, you don't seem to understand why I bring up Noether's theorem.
Let me explain: Noether's theorem neither falsifies nor verifies your paper. All it says is that your conclusion would imply anisotropic space. Address that.

>>14725077
No. I do not have to address that. That is evasion of the paper.

>>14725078
You do, since Noether's theorem currently reduces your argument ad absurdium.

>>14725083
No, the reductio ad absurdum reduces Noether’s theorem. Clown. You can’t tell me that the paper which falsified COAM is wrong because you have a paper which comes to a different conclusion. That is directly Illogical. It is called a formal logic fallacy. You have to show false premiss or illogic or accept that the conclusion is proven.

>>14725093
Your paper has got nothing on Noether's theorem. You are simply wrong. See it as a truth-functional that takes the conclusion of your paper as an input.

>>14725094
You have failed to falsify my paper so how can you claim that Noether’s is stronger. That is irrational.

>>14725096
Your paper assigns a truth value [math]p[/math] to COAM.
Noether's theorem [math]N[/math] takes the truth value and tells you whether the universe is anisotropic [math]a[/math] or isotropic [math]i[/math].
In other words: [math]N(p)=i[/math] and [math]N(\neg p)=a[/math].

>>14725098
Nope. One paper falsifies COAM and one paper supports COAM. Neither can be defeated. Both proofs stand until evidence confirming which is true can be found.

>>14725100
>Nope
Yes

>>14725104
Fuck off with your stubborn dogmatic one word bullshit answers you ignorant fucking piece of shit. Face the fact that orb proofs stand and behave reasonably. What the fuck is wrong with you cunts.

>>14725107
Noether's theorem is not falsified by your proof. Rather, it shows an implication of your proof, that is anisotropic space. Now it's time for you to work on anisotropic geometry to see what this really means.

>>14725107
Rage harder

>>14725112
Fuck off.

>>14725113
No.

>>14725096
Watch this, John https://youtu.be/w7Q5mQA_74o

>>14725120
Again flat earther argument moron. Now fuck off if you are incapable of reason.

>>14725126
Watch the video, John. You don't understand the mathematical reasoning behind this.

>>14725126
https://youtu.be/hF_uHfSoOGA

>>14725128
The video does not falsify my paper now fuck off with this irrational shit

>>14725134
see >>14725132

>>14725136
Until you show false premiss or illogic, the paper stands. No matter how many articles and videos you can find which contradict the conclusion, your argument is illogical.

>>14725146
Please just watch one video on Noether's theorem so we are on even grounds and can discuss the problem

>>14725148
The problem is that COAM is false. Irrelevant of Noether. Stop being illogical.

>>14725150
This is not a refutation or proof of COAM. Watch this video to understand why symmetries are directly equivalent to conservation laws. Then see that falsification of COAM would imply the absence of rotational symmetry.

>>14725156
It is irrelevant. COAM is false. Until you can show a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm. Which you can’t because COAM is false.

>>14725162
>It is irrelevant
Why do you think so? Wouldn't the lack of rotational symmetry be huge?

>>14725165
It is huge, but COAM being false is huge enough all on its own.

>>14725169
So what would geometry without rotational symmetry look like? You may find something much more fundamental if you think about that.

>>14725162
I already measured it and got 1260 Hz

>>14725172
COAM being wrong is about as fundamental as is possible. Come on man. THINK. Wtf???

>>14725187
Symmetry is far more fundamental than COAM.

>>14725174
So you confirm with very good agreement that angular energy is conserved. What is the issue here. Why are you not supporting me?

>>14725190
Nope. Wrong. Symmetry is second year science. COAM is first year obviously COAM is fundamental and symmetry is high level. Seriously????

>>14725196
If A implies B, then A is more fundamental than B. Do you disagree with that?

>>14725201
Yes. I disagree with that. That is wishful thinking nonsense.

>>14725206
So please write down the axioms for Mandlbaurian logic.

>>14725193
Sir, watch this https://youtu.be/qzNb_T7Yj9Y

>>14725209
Noether developed a theorem under the unquestionable assumption that COAM is true. Obviously her theorem is going to agree with its own premiss. Claiming that the fact that it supports its own premiss somehow confirms the premiss is illogical.

COAM makes predictions which contradict reality therefore COAM is false. That is sound logic.

>>14725212
You watch this. www.baur-research.com/Physics and stop being illogical asshole.

>>14725217
No. The rigid mathematical proof does not assume truth of COAM

>>14725221
My rigorous maths which cannot be defeated does assume COAM and falsified it.
Whatever your speculation about Noether.

>>14725229
Your paper is a reductio ad absurdum, not a mathematical proof by contradiction.

>>14725231
There is no difference in concept the “proof by contradiction” is a modern way of saying reductio ad absurdum.

Stop being a fucking idiot.

>>14725217
Utter bullshit. That's like saying Euler invented the Euler Identity because he assumed circular motion existed. Noether's Theorem is a theorem about mathematics. That fact it can then be applied to equations that apply to physics is a secondary benefit.

>>14725236
Except a proof by contradiction is only a reductio ad absurdum within a very rigid mathematical context. You saying that 12000 rpm is ridiculous by no means constitutes a contradiction; it's you claiming it's absurd.

>>14725240
Noether’s theorem is consistent with COAM so it is bullshit until you can show us a ball on a string demonstration doing 12000 rpm. You can’t? Is that because COAM is false by any chance?

>>14725245
Nope. 12000 rpm contradicts reality. End of story. You have to be in some strange denial to not recognize that.

>>14725253
>12000 rpm contradicts reality
How do you know, retard? You never did an experiment or anything even close to that. You just called it ridiculous like the retard you are.

>>14725250
Take your meds.

>>14725250
How do you still not understand what a mathematical theorem is?

>>14725255
Fuck you

>>14725212
An hour
Nope

>>14725259
sensing strong schizotypal symptoms from you

>>14725258
How do you still not understand that if 12000 rpm is unrealistic then COAM is false?

>>14725262
Even if COAM were false, how would it imply Noether's theorem is false?

>>14725261
Fuck you you insulting cunt. The fact that you are incapable of defeating my paper does not justify this shit behavior.

>>14725264
What meds are you currently on?

>>14725263
If a is consistent with B and B is false then a must be false too. Obviously.

>>14725267
So if [math]A\Rightarrow B[/math], and [math]B[/math] is false, you say [math]A[/math] must be false too?

>>14724501
you fucking moron.
The prrofs of falsity directly references your paper, dipshit.
That is how you falsify something, you simpleton.gyjykn

>>14725264
Every single response in this thread invalidates the paper but in the end its pointless because even with everyone telling you the mistakes you will never, ever admit to being wrong. You're a mental patient and need psychological help. You've gone beyond retarded into the realm of comedy. You new name is the /sci/ jester.

>>14725270
Let me try to make this crystal clear. Noether is consistent with COAM. COAM is inconsistent with reality. Noether is inconsistent with reality.

>>14725275
And let me refute this by saying Noether's theorem is a MATHEMATICAL theorem

>>14725274
No post has falsified any equation in the paper, so not post can possibly falsify a paper which it does not even address. Am I on planet dumbass here. Wtf?

>>14725278
> Am I on planet dumbass
Yes. Yes you are. It's your own little world with an inhabitant of one.

>>14725267
I just spilled my drink kek

>>14725277
There is a mistake in her maths because it is inconsistent with reality.

My paper is a MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS PAPER.

You have failed to falsify my maths, so my conclusion is as strong as Noether’s theorem.

>>14725270
Logical arguments aren't going to work on this wacko.

>>14725286
How is her math inconsistent with reality when she doesn't assume COAM to be true to derive it?

>>14725280
Fuck you.

>>14725267
Pinnacle of Rhodesian education

>>14725287
My papers are all logical and undefeated, so you are all whackos refusing to concede.

>>14725293
I asked you before to state the axioms of Mandlbaurian logic so we can understand your paper

>>14725267
God damn that's the funniest post I'd read all week.

>>14725290
If she derives COAM and COAM is false, then her derivation is flawed.

>>14725292
I see nothing wrong with this. Are you upset because it's not mindless and drone-like enough for you?

>>14723647
E = mcc
Since c is constant, the only way to increase energy is to increase mass.

>>14725296
My paper is very clear and you are being obtuse and harassing. Fuck off asshole. Point out an error or accept the conclusion like you demand from me when you present Noether. Fucking double standard cunt.

>>14725298
How do you still not understand that it's a mathematical theorem that CAN be applied to physics? If COAM is true, it implies isotropic space. If it's not, then it implies anisotropic space.

>>14725278
In the multiple threads you have about your paper theater have been countless posts showing how you fucked up.
You just don't have the courage, the base honesty to acknowledge their rightness.
What you do is texting equivalent of putting your fingers in your ear
Somehow you can use established physics to prove your point but only you, no one else can use any other established physics.
You are unscientific, dishonest and illogical.

>>14725304
Besides Noether's theorem, what else do you deny? Do you believe in the principle of least action?

>>14725306
I don’t give a shit. I am not a mathematician.

My proof is undefeated so accept the conclusion like you demand you double standards cunt.

>>14725307
Nope. There has been character assassination like you do right now. But nobody has ever addressed my paper. Like you are evading it right now.

>>14725309
> I am not a mathematician.
That is blatantly obvious.

>>14725308
I have not denied Noether’s theorem. I have falsified COAM.
You are insisting that COAM is true because “Noether” what other irrational evasion are you going to come up with?

Why can’t you just address my paper?

My maths is much simpler than hers. If you can understand hers then why do you have difficulty with mine?

>>14725316
Do you agree with the principle of least action? Let's find some common ground here.

>>14725312
Well if it is so obvious and you are such a good mathematical genius then how come you can’t defeat my maths. Ignorant fuckjgn moron

>>14725316
> I have not denied Noether’s theorem

Oh really?

>>14725298
> If she derives COAM and COAM is false, then her derivation is flawed.

>>14725275
> Noether is consistent with COAM. COAM is inconsistent with reality. Noether is inconsistent with reality.

>>14725250
> Noether’s theorem is consistent with COAM so it is bullshit

>>14725311
Fick face, you ignore posts that falsify your paper. You do the very thing you accuse others of doing.
Simce you can't logically and scientifically counter these posts showing your paper to be false then you HAVE to accep the conclusion that your paper is false.

>>14725267
if red fruit taste good and the red color of fruit is consistent with the red color of red cars, that means that red cars must also taste good, obviously?

>>14725267
ahahahaha now it all makes sense

>>14725328
You are a faggot tranny

>>14725331
Damn you.
Now i have this picture in my head of an angry Chihuahua named John chasing a red car.

>>14725267
smartest south african

>>14725338
See, you can't handle the truth.
Such an insult from someone like you has no bite and is meaningless.

>>14725267
go right back to /b/, you fucking retard

>>14725328
To falsify my paper you have to point out an equation number and explain the error within it, not just personally insult me.

>>14725365
First state the axioms of Mandlbaurian logic.

>>14725367
My logic is plain logic. If the law makes predictions that are stupid the law is stupid.

>>14725367
He never will because his stupidity will be even more obvious that it already it.

>>14725369
and stupid = false?

>>14725365
That has been done multiple times.
Pull your head from your ass and you will see them.

>>14725369
Or the one using the law is stupid

>>14725369
You don't even state the law.
That is your first failing.

>>14725369
So your argument is "I'm right because I said so."

Brilliant. That's the logic of 5 year old children.

>>14725385
Worse
Say we have an equation that predicts the trajectory of a perfect arrow in a perfect word.
He is using that equation on a flu-flu arrow under standard synostotic conductions then calling everyone an idiot for not using his equations, for pointing out his error, etc.

>>14725385
No, it is the logic of Richard Feynman. >>14724357

>>14725405
Keep on telling that yourself

>>14725401
No, I am using referenced existing physics equations for the classic existing physics example by the book.

>>14725408
I am telling the simple truth. If the prediction does not match reality then the theory is wrong. That is the scientific method.

>>14725384
My equations are referenced. If you don’t like them. Tough. You have to accept them as they are and address my proof accordingly.

>>14725405
So where is the experimental evidence?

>>14725381
My equations are referenced you have to accept them as is. Are you the same person pretending to be three or what? Why do I have to repeat myself?

>>14725379
Which equation number is falsified you lying piece of shit.

>>14725377
12000 rpm is stupid and it is false because it is stupid.

>>14725372
Logic is logic. What the fuck are you idiots talking about. Fuck you. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Face it like an adult. FFS

>>14725421
When you use the ideal equations on a complex system... All of them, dipshit.

>>14725414
Dipshit, i never said i didnt like the equations.
You are evading and being dishonest.
Directly address the criticisms or accept the conclusion that your paper is objectively false.

>>14725425

>>14725409
Fine, restate your claim and the example.
8f you dont then you are evading and be8ng dishonest and you have to accept the irrifutable conclusion that your paper is false.

>>14725411
Not when your use of the method is telling you that the orange colored citrus fruit in front of you is actually a legum.

>>14725437
My claim is that angular momentum is not conserved and here is my proof : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf..
It is a mathematical physics paper, so you have to point out an equation number and explain the error within it which stands up to rebuttal or accept that the conclusion is proven.

>>14725434
No one can understand basic stupid shit. If a theory says one thing will happen and something other than what is predicted happens then the theory is wrong. That is basic stupid as fuck logic.
You have to be a mental case to have difficulty understanding that.

>>14725433
You do not falsify my proof that physics is wrong by claiming that physics is wrong. That is stupid as fuck.
What the fuck is going on here?
Are you honestly that fucking stupid dense?
Wtf?

>>14725442
No, restate your claim.
You are evading.
R8ght here in a post. Lay out what the law states, dont paraphrase or truncate it, state it fully.
Fully state your counterclaim. Dont paraphrase, state the claim in full.
What you write and the words you choose define the boundaries of your claim so choose them carefully.

Linking your paper doesnt work because you have repeatedly shown that you cant adhere to the claim and example you use.

>>14725428
My equations are referenced and for the open air example. You have to accept them as is.
How many times do I have to repeat this stupid obvious fucking shit?

>>14725454
The basic stupid logic here is the sinple misapplication of physics.

>>14725460
Address my paper and stop this illogical evasive red herring shit.

>>14725456
low IQ post

>>14725456
See, you are ilogical and dishonest.
Not once did i say physics is wrong.

>>14725467
Then you must point out which equation is being “misapplied” and show us how to apply it and give us a result which is different to the 12000 rpm which is already agreed to be correct by physicists. You are just a lying piece of evasive squirming shit.

>>14725469
Fuck off.

>>14725462
Until the light goes on and you see you basic mistake.
I'm beginning to doubt that the bulb is even plugged in.

>>14725472
My paper is existing physics and you are saying existing physics is wrong. Surely you can see the connection?

>>14725473
That has already been addressed.
You simply evade. That is all you do, all you are capable of doing.

>>14725476
The light that need to go on is the one in your blind spot about the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14725481
Nope, i have not on e said existing physics is wrong.
You are now blatantly lying.

>>14725482
I have addressed and defeated every argument ever presented. You are just fucking lying through your dirty piece of shit teeth. Fuck you

>>14725484
Except it doesn't, not in the world your chosen equations describe.

>>14725486
Well then accept that my proof is valid.

>>14725488
Nope, evasion is not defeating.

>>14721301
light can push mass but still has no mass

>>14725489
My equations are referenced from the book for the classic open air classroom example. In fact my equations are mathematically derived from COAM. So you literally argue that COAM itself is wrong.

>>14725491
Why? Your proof doesn't match your example.

>>14725492
Stop evading then. I have faced up to and defeat med every argument ever presented and I can prove it.
Which equation number do you think has been falsified?

>>14725494
Nope. Mass cannot be pushed without other mass to push it. Only in fantasy.

>>14725500
My proof takes the classic open air classroom demonstration example from the book and evaluates it. You are out of your fucking mind.

>>14725496
Post the entire chapter not just the equations.
Anything less is evasion. Anything less than you have to accept the fact that you misinterpreted the chapter thus you have to accept the conclusion that your paper is false.

>>14725502
See there you go again line I have not invaded your paper I have addressed your paper you on the other hand chose to invade in your responses those are frh0yxmacts that can be checked in the archive.

>>14725506
Post a picture of the example from the textbook.

>>14725513
Okay. Since you cannot falsify any equation in my paper and claim to have addressed it, then you must have accepted that angular momentum conservation is false.

>>14725517
You are here to mock and nothing else. So fuck off.

>>14725525
Since you acknowledge my claim to have addressed your paper you must except the conclusion that your paper has been objectively falsified.

>>14725533
Fuck off

>>14725528
How is asking you to back up your own claims considered mocking?

>>14725534
Can you live stream your life good tick tock channel set up or something? The prospect of the look of horror on your face when you finally get what everybody's been telling you that would drive so many subscriptions and views that your payday would make bezos and musk look like chump change.

>>14725477
low IQ reply

>>14725528
John, quick question: I have heard the book you use as a reference is your 40-year-old high school physics textbook. Why use such an obviously elementary and unsuitable book as a reference? It's quite clear that nobody in the field uses this as a reference. Why not use something like Landau and Lifshitz's Course of Theoretical Physics? I can assure you, it's far more often used as a reference.

>>14725504
John what do you think of magnetism?

>>14725292
>You are free to use the calculator
Wtf? Please explain, John.

>>14725557
There is nothing wrong with his reference if it actually matched his redskins.
He is just trying to use entry level lessons, like a baby learning to crawl, on a more complex system, learning to jump hurdles.
He is incapable of walking.

>>14725572
Redskins? The fuck, autocorrect.
That should be example.

>>14725557
The physics has not changed significantly in centuries so fuck off you evasive piece of shit.

>>14725561
I think that it is not relevant to the fact that light has mass. This is an anonymous forum my name is anonymous so you have issues with that?

>>14725580
Sir, obviously, if you use a book designed for children you may not get the full picture. Do you understand this? You only have to read 26 pages in L&L to get to angular momentum.

>>14725572
Fuck you. Stop harassing me.

>>14725585
John, do you think magnetic waves have mass?

>>14725318
Why can't the Mandlbaur reply to this?

>>14725586
My book is a very well accepted university physics book and you are a pice of shit fraud cunt to suggest the my proof is wrong because my physics book is wrong FUCK YOU.

>>14725548
Fuck you.

>>14725594
It's only 26 pages to read, what's the issue?

>>14725545
Fuck you you piece of evasive shit.

>>14725588
You are harrassing the board.

>>14725539
How is coming here and impersonating me supposed to look you ducking harassing cunt. Fuck you.

What's the issue, John?

>>14725599
But see, I've already directly addressed the paper. Your reply was to evade and throw up a smoke screen.

>>14725267
wtf did I just read?

>>14725601
I've not once impersonated you. Are you actively trying to get banned?

>>14725608
Is it really difficult to understand plain logic now. What ducking planet is this. Only nutcases allowed or what. Fuck you. Idiot.

>>14725615
Sorry, I'm not well-versed in Mandlbaurian logic. Could you help me out?

>>14725610
So your username “the real John” has nothing to do with trying to intimidate me you piece of obvious shit

>>14725616
The logic is plain and simple and you are an asshole. Fuck you.

> ITT
When everyone in the world is telling you you are an idiot and wrong then maybe, just maybe, you are an idiot and wrong.

>>14725627
Alright so help me out?

>>14725607
Which equation number have you defeated you lying piece of shit. Fuck you.

>>14725616
The logic is whatever he wants it to be to be proven right.

>>14725606
My name is anonymous. Fuck you.

>>14725623
You have a problem with people whose first name is John?
Seriously, look at your post. You are intimidated by the first name shared by thousands of men.

>>14725632
Ive already told you, even in this thread.
So, that doesnt make me a liar.

>>14725636
>M-My name is anonymous!!
>(hah, that'll show him!)

>>14725600
I did not make this post. I am simply standing up for the truth on a board that is closed minded and feeling harassed because they don’t want to face the fact that 300 years of physics is stupid wrong.
Deny and censor. That is all you cunts have got. Nobody brave enough to actually measure and face it. Like a bunch of fucking flat earthers celebrating when Galileo got arrested because they didn’t want to hear the truth. Fuck you closed minded cunts.

>>14725597
The issue is that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and you are blind afraid to face that simple fact.

>>14725655
Alternatively you are a schizo nutjob who has proven nothing and you'll end your life with no one remembering you existed.

This thread is hilarious. How do people like this manage to get through everyday life?

>>14725655
Ok, them You are harrassing the board.

>>14725660
Context

Online or bound, look up the definition.

>>14725669
No. I am trying to publicize my discovery. The fact that you feel harassed because you don’t like to face what I have discovered does not make me guilty of harassment. It makes you guilty of a closed mind and prejudice.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and the fact that light is affected by gravity objectively confirms that light has mass.
You feeling uncomfortable about the truth is not my fault.
Grow up and face up.
Please?

>>14725673
Light is affected by gravity which is overwhelming independent experimental confirmation that light has mass.

>>14725686
You replied to the wrong post.

>>14725682
>the fact that light is affected by gravity objectively confirms that light has mass
oh boy. I thought this guy was maybe a master troll but he's genuinely a smooth brain.

>>14725665
I don’t know how someone who is too dumb to recognize that since light is affected by gravity, it must have mass gets through life, but here we are and there appear to be many of the ignorant.

>>14725682
12000 doesnt falsify COAM.
Using the wrong equations however will give you the wrong result.
This is physics 101 shit, dipshit.

>>14725662
The fact that light is affected by gravity and all attempts to measure its mass confirm that it has mass, should give you a hint.

>>14725695
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14725697
> all attempts to measure its mass confirm that it has mass
I'd love to see links to those experiments.

>>14725705
Well go and google them and stop wasting my time ignorant asshole.

>>14725700
>objectively

>>14725708
I tried but I can only find thousands of experimental papers showing that light has no mass. You obviously have better Google skills than I do.

>>14725682
John, I already invited you to the University of Johannesburg but you declined, why?

>>14725692
Do you honestly have difficulty following that ?

You are the dumbass here asshole.

>>14725689
No, in context of the op, I provided an argument because it appears you were playing stupid.

>>14725713
>>14725717
stop trolling

>>14725709
Fuck you.

>>14725719
I do not troll. I am being trolled by all the closed minded assholes who are afraid of the fact that light has mass. You are desperately trying to censor me because you are afraid of the fucking truth you ignorant bitch.

>>14725723
>>14725721
stop trolling

>>14725712
I did not decline and you are trolling because you are not at the university you liar.

>>14725711
Present your proof that light has no mass you lying piece of shit.

>>14725727
I told you to come to my office but you didn't...

>>14725725
I do not troll you are busy trolling right now you piece of shit.

>>14725734
Send me an email to my address in my paper please?

Accepting invites on this forum is suspect and not only that but our discussion was cut short because I got censored so I did not get your details.

If you are genuine then you must know already about the fuss at wits.

>>14725594
So in Rhodesia, high school and university were the same things?

>>14725733
https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf

>>14725717
But, i didnt post a reply to the OP when i called out context.
That is called evasion, John.

>>14725744
Some people check their references before posting...

I'm trans btw

>>14725741
Rhodesian education was the best English speaking education in the world.

>>14725324
that was a different troll. all of the apparent 12000 rpm schizos are in fact trolls. there is no John Mandlbaur.

>>14725744
It does not find a zero mass. What are you smoking, retard. Stop wasting my time you fuck.

>>14725749
I am not the op asshole. Fuck you.

>>14725830
Not at all. In the 70s, lots of professors were paid pretty terribly so you had some over-qualified professors working at American high schools.

>>14725814
I don’t give a shit what your sexual preferences and mental problems are.

>>14725830
Rhodesia honestly was pretty terrible, regardless of what nationalist retards like you want us to believe.

>>14725098
Space is anisotropic;
See EM fields
Gravity wells
And Vacuum energy

>>14725831
A statement starting with “if” is not a denial, idiots. You are fucking disgusting with your personal insults. Just face the obvious fact that COAM is false and stop
persecuting me. FFS

>>14725843
I am not here to discuss Rhodesia. Fuck you. Face the face that light has mass and stop the fucking piece of shit ad hominem. Grow the fuck up. Retard.

>>14725862
You're just wrong, that's it.

>>14725849
Zimbabwe is still known today for the best education in Africa. So fuck off you ignorant retard.

>>14725870
>best education in Africa
doesn't mean much. We were talking about the English-speaking world, remember?

>>14725866
I am right and that is why retards like yourself say stupid unsupported thing like “you’re just wrong” when they have failed to defeat my proof.

>>14725881
You're wrong about Rhodesia, physics, really just everything.

>>14725098
SPACE IS ANISOTROPIC SPACE IS ANISOTROPIC SPACE IS ANISOTROPIC

EM FIELDS, GRAVITY FIELDS, VACUUM ENERGY DENSITY FIELDS ARE NOT ISOTROPIC

AND THOSE 3 THINGS ARE 70-90% OF WHAT SPACE IS

POOR LITTLE EMMY DIDNT KNOW ABOUT THEM WHEN SHE BARKED HER SIMPLE UTTERANCE

>>14725874
The wealthiest of English families sometimes sent their kids to Rhodesia for the purposes of getting the best education in the world, I believe. The reason Zimbabwe education is the best is because that kind of institution is strong and lasting.
Like your institutionalized idea that light has mass without any evidence supporting it is strong and lasting, even against the obvious.

>>14725862
JOHN, GRAVITY AND EM FIELD IS THE CLUE. I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOUR PERFECT CRISP 12000 NUMBER;

BUT AN OBJECT ROTATING DEFFINITLY WILL ALTER ITS SURROUNDING FIELDS; AND AN OBJECT ROTATING FASTER LIKELY WILL ALTER THE SURROUNDING FIELDS TO DEGREES DIFFERENTLY

THE EFECTS OF GRAVITY, AND POSSIBLE THE PLANETS MAGNETIC FIELDS, AND MOONS ORBITS WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF THE SUN AND PLANETS WERE NOT ROTATING

>>14725884
I am right. Fuck you.

>>14725893
you meant to say light has no mass?

>>14725898
I think that you are bullshitting yourself. This is just a bunch of lame excuses trying to defend a stupid theory.
The reason we can’t predict anything accurately has to do with the fact that angular momentum is not conserved and we imagine it is, so our predictions are fucking stupid. That’s why you need all the excuses. Adopt my theory and you will predict accurately and not need excuses. Wake the duck up.