/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14743894

>>14743894
Your OP pic itself is kinda pol, since it's demonizing a BIPOC women in or to gorify a white man...
Anyway to answer your OP, most of us do tell anti Einstein and anti-relativity/anti-QM tards to fuck off all the time. Just as we do with the antivaxxers and other conspiratards and disinfo shitposters.

>>14743894
>sci is the jew who got rich by fucking over others and subverting countries
>pol is the based sheboon tired of his tricks
correct

>>14743919
even apes notice patterns

"pol bleeding over" is just how cringe retards cope with being confronted on their poorly thought out nonsense

>>14743944
t. angry incel shitposter

>>14743907
So you're telling me you're specialize in physics, medicine and politics at the same time? Sounds to me like you're just fucking love science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aISPlTLbJo

>>14743894
What is the context of this image.
>>14743907
>BIPOC
Anon I...

>>14743894
Lmao, that pic should be in history books for as long as America is a nation. Oh and /pol/tards will always be /pol/tards, they just come here to feel smart as to make up for the mental deficiencies they face daily.

>>14743894
Consider joining the anti Einstein, soientist.

>>14743894
The Landau thing really hurt the confidence of a lot of the /sci/ regulars. After that they couldn't even deboonk the angular momentum guy

>>14743907
>bernie sanders
>white

>>14743948
here is one of those special minds now

>>14743894
OP image is why Berni will never be elected President.
At his OWN rally he meekly surrendered the pulpit to two feral sheboons.

>Someone is criticizing my favorite scientific theory
>I better call them a racist!
I hate post-Covid science so much

>>14743937
Yeah of course leftists are lower than the apes.

>>14745250
Your pic is the reason why whites will never ever have an ethnostate again, they have lost all semblance of an actual society, no republimutt or demonrat gives a flying fuck about anything organic. The people in your image are considered "white trash" by both sides. Keep loosing everything, and keep voting the same subhumans in.

>>14745297
> post-Covid
Lmao, found a newfag

>>14743944
This is ridiculous and you'd know it, if you'd been here for more than 3 years

>>14743894
90% of the time they're arguing in bad faith and are just making threads to poke the bear because they think it's fun to watch a bunch of /sci/entists sperg out (they're not wrong).
9% of the time they're arguing because it's their genuine opinion, but it's an opinion that's open to being changed, so you do your best to present the evidence and arguments and persuade them.
1% of the time they're arguing because it's their genuine opinion, and it's an opinion that will never change.

We don't tell them to fuck off because that 9% is still salvageable.

>>14744435
mind you telling whats the Landau thing?

>>14744435
>After that they couldn't even deboonk the angular momentum guy
They can't deboonk angular momentum guy for the same reason they can't convince a guy who eats his own shit all day to stop eating shit.

Because they're morons.

>>14746040
Someone was claiming that Landau was full of errors
I don't know it's permitted to link to archive sites, but one thread was:
>>14571673

>>14744435
I just looked up "Landau" in the archives and I'm pretty sure I've found at least two dozen of what seem to be your posts calling the books a meme and the guys behind them brainlets over and over again. Man, you're obsessed. Ever thought of taking a break from trolling on /sci/?

>>14746088
They can’t debunk me because the truth can’t be defeated and you are the moron for imagining that they are too stupid when the fact is that they are wrong and it makes no difference how clever you are. If you are wrong you can’t win.

>>14747792

>>14747873
Yea - riiight. The retard is obviously the one who’s argument cannot be defeated.
Are you fucking mentally deficient. Asshole.

>>14747897
You're based but retarded, sorry, bro.

>>14747904
Yea riiight. The retarded one is the one who cannot be defeated and all the idiots trying desperately to defeat the truth are not retarded. Obviously. Fuck you. Moron.

>>14747908
So your babble is unfalsifiable nonsense. Thanks for clarifying.

>>14747916
The truth cannot be falsified. That does not make it unfalsifiable you cringeworthy retard. FUCK OFF AND FUCK YOU.

>>14747920
Explain

>>14747921
Unfalsifiable means that there is no possibility to falsify. My work could be falsified easily if it were false.

Are you seriously too stupid to comprehend the meaning of the term falsifiable?

>>14747925
No, I would like to know how you know your work is the truth.

>>14747928
Because a ball on a string does not do 12000 rpm, so COAM is falsified. Is this difficult to understand?

>>14747931
And that is unfalsifiable how?

>>14747933
It is falsifiable because you can measure it. It cannot be falsified because measurements confirm that it does not do 12000 rpm.

>>14747934
And what are those rigorous measurements you speak of?

>>14747936
Existing physics relies upon “it spins faster”. Would you call that “rigorous”. You double standards cunt face.

>>14747937
>Existing physics relies upon “it spins faster”.
No, it relies on Hamilton's principle and Noether's theorem. Very difficult to falsify but sure possible.

>>14747939
Bullshit. In terms of rigorous measurements, you have fuck all. Any rigorous measurements agree with me.

So fuck you and your stubborn ignorance and appeal to theoretical tradition logical fallacy.

Apply the scientific method. Instead of the dogmatic religious method.

>>14747942
So what do you deny? Noether's theorem? Hamilton's principle?

>>14747944
I am not denying either.

Are you claiming that 12000 rpm is realistic?

>>14747950
If that's the case, then you'd agree with the conclusion that is anisotropy of space, thus, nonsense.
I won't reply any further. You're not worth my time.

>>14747953
Appealing to tradition is illogical.
Evading the evidence is the behavior of a flat earther.
Fuck off retarded flat earther.

>>14747950
aliens use 12000 rpm for the saucer UFOs

>>14747962
Does a classroom ball on a string demonstration go 12000 rpm?

>>14747953
You are the one wasting time by refusing to behave rationally.

>>14747792
12000 RPM objectively validates COAM.

>>14748076
If you could show us a typical ball on a string demonstration doing 12000 rpm, it would, yes.
Since you cannot, COAM is falsified by it.
This is not difficult, for a non-retard.

>>14747966
Describe the ball on a string demonstration using equations.
I dare you, dipshit.

>>14748084
No one can provide a demonstration that adheres only to the variables in the basic AM equation.
We can minimize but not eliminate other forces.
This is basic physics 101 that your pile of shit you use for a brain seems incapable of processing.
Damn but you are the dumbest fuck in history.

>>14748090
To accurately predict a ball on a string the equation is :
W2 = r1/r2 * W1
As has been confirmed perfectly by the LabRat experiment.
Now fuck off you ignorant retard.

>>14748100
The difference between 12000 rpm and reality is not excused by you saying “friction” and neglecting the evidence you fucking ignorant retard.

>>14748102
So, after all these years you admit that the equation is perfectly confirmed by an experiment?
This is one for the scrap book.

>>14748106
I didn't say friction, asshole.

>>14748117
Yes you did retard. Now fuck off with your grasping at straws bullshit. Face the facts like a grown up.

>>14748114
You are literally retarded. Insanity is not a reasonable stand point you fucking nitwit.

>>14748127
You truly are this fuckingd dumb.
Find on page "friction".
Two hits, the first one being YOU.

>>14748132
>Insanity is not a reasonable stand point you fucking nitwit.
That is what everyone has been telling you for years.

>>14748134
You don’t have to literally say “friction” to be claiming friction you ducking idiot.

You are trying to blame friction for a massive discrepancy like a delusional fucking moron who’s bias is blind and brainless.

Your argument is defeated because grasping at straws is not science.

Now fuck off you flat earther.

>>14748142
My standpoint is reason. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. That is reason.

Your standpoint which is any fuckjgn excuse you can think of to avoid facing the fact that 12000 rpm is wrong and falsifies COAM, is insane.

>>14748152
Wow, you lie about your own claims now, see
>>14748102

>>14748143
No, I'm blaming torque, you imbicile.
Try reading the rest of that physics text book.

>>14748162
Torque from “friction” you fucking retard. Fuck you and the straws you grasp at and the fucking twisted bullshit irrational nonsense that you come up with. Fuck off. Stop wasting time.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM like a grown up that can face facts.

>>14748158
You are obviously retarded. 12000 rpm is the prediction of physics which is nonsense and falsifies COAM. The equations I specified accurately predict 1200 rpm. Do you under now. You fuck.

>>14748173
>Stop wasting time.
says the demented boomer who's spent the entire morning so far in this shithole babbling about high school physics

>>14748178
I have presented my discovery. It is you wasting time in denial.

>>14748181
You have not discovered anything.
Anyone that actually pays attention in physics 101 know that the introduction chapters are based on ideal, perfect examples in isolation.

>>14748197
Anyone reasonable knows that 12000 rpm is so absurdly wrong that you are grasping at straws.

Grasping at straws and neglecting the evidence is bad science, retard.

>>14748202
Neglecting objectively basic science is bad science, fuckface.

>>14748208
Well then stop neglecting it you fucking idiot.

>>14748210
I'm not neglecting all the forces acting on the ball and string...

>>14748202
Logical progression from simple, ideal systems to more complex ones.
Why the fuck can't you grasp this?
Is the thought that you are wrong so scary that you can't entertain the mere thought of being wrong?
You can't event describe the ball and string system using equations.

>>14748220
You are neglecting the basic science which predicts the objectively wrong 12000 rpm.

>>14748224
There is no logic which can explain 12000 rpm other that to accept that the law is wrong.

>>14748226
No, ive not once denied the basic science.
Stop lying about what I've said.
That is harrasment and illogical.

>>14748228
Yeah, the logic that the equation you use are limited to a perfect system as described ONLY by the properties in the equation.

>>14748256
Nope. The equations I use are referenced and for the classroom example and have not changed in about three centuries. You are trying to shift the goalposts which is illogical.

>>14748252
You are doing nothing else than denying that the basic science producing a prediction of 12000 rpm directly and objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14748252
You pretending to be two people is harassment, retard.

>>14748265
Im not pretending to be two people.

>>14748260
Point to any post where I deny basic science.

>>14748268
No. You are just having two arguments which are essentially the same argument in attempt to make me think there is more than one idiot in the discussion blurting “friction” against a contradiction. Fuckwit.

>>14748273
Basic science predicts 12000 rpm which contradicts reality. You are in denial of that directly.

>>14748275
That there are two parallel lines of posts in replies in no way means that's really duplicity on my part. That is just you being delusional.

>>14748280
No, it is you being deceitful. Stop it. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop grasping at straws in stereo.

>>14748276
See you can't going to a single post where I deny basic science.
The basic science as described by the formulas that you use.

>>14748284
How is replying to a post deceitful?
Stop lying.
Stop harassing me.
Stop the ad hominem attacks.
You're being illogical and unscientific.

>>14748259
[math]\texttt{Wrong.}[/math]

>>14748284
It is plain to see that you don't have the mental capacity to recognize that if you want a parallel line of replies to stop you but have to stop replying.

>>14748297
Replying as if there are two of you to try and strengthen your illogical argument is deceitful.

>>14748316
meds

>>14748305
Right.

>>14743894
Even Einstein got a few things wrong.

>>14748307
I don’t think I should have to face incessant illogical fallacious arguments and personal attack at all.

12000 rpm is obviously wrong so the law is wrong and any reasonable person must immediately accept that.

You making excuses in stereo is not unusual. It is normal for people to abandon rationality. Unfortunately.

>Come back 3 hours later
>the African schizo is still shitposting
man, you really have a lot of time to kill, huh?

>>14748319
Fuck off you insulting ignorant moronic cunt.

>>14748323
Actually he got everything wrong because he overlooked the fact that COAM is false.

>>14748330
prove it

>>14748316
And just what way am I replying as if there are two of me when there is one of me and only one of me is replying?
Would it help if i signed each of my posts?
-Signed, you are a dipshit.

>>14748326
Then please stop incessently lying about me.
Stop harrassing me
Stop with the ad hominem.
Stop being illogical and unscientific.

>>14748335
Opps, i forgot to sign
-Signed, you are a dipshit.

>>14748335
I have done nothing of the sort and you are making false accusations because you are afraid to face the objective fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM. Please stop evading by insults?

>>14743907
>anti Einstein and anti-relativity/anti-QM
Why you combined all those? One can be anti Einstein because Einstein barely made any contributions and commited plagiarism by not citing Poincare, not because they hate relativity or anything.

>>14748348
You have objectively lied about what I've posted.
You continously harass me and engage in ad hominem attacks.
Please stop.
You are being illogical and unscientific.

>>14747625
I'm not the Landau-exposer anon, just a neutral observer

>>14748329
What's wrong, Sir?

>>14748391
You make an ad hominem attack in evasion of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14748425
I am extremely offended by your personal insults and frustrated by your refusal to address the fact that 12000 objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14748476
Sir have you tried posting your arguments on /g/? There are lots of engineers there that may be more interested than bigoted academia

>>14748480
Not yet.
Engineers however are deluded and imagine that they can from the equation L = r x p, conserve both L and p simultaneously when r changes.
When that is pointed out, they simply run away with their tails between their legs in some kind of screwed up denial.

>>14748487
Consider making one there since most people on /sci/ have already filtered your posts so few will see it

>>14748509
How the fuck do you know that?
Why would people be so stupid?
That does not make sense.
I think you bullshit.

>>14748519
simple statistics. Your previous threads hit 400-500 replies. This one only has ~60 replies.
People are tired of you, so they filter your posts.

>>14748519
Also, you're easy to filter since you keep on using the same terms like "COAM".

>>14748526
They are not tired of me. They tired of evading the truth. Blocking out the truth is not a good way to deal with it.
I think they are changing their minds, so less argue because they agree.
How many of your posts have cracked 300 replies?

>>14748533
That is totally stupid. Wtf am I supposed to say when. I have to respond to thousands of replies. That is jus

>>14748541
either invent new terms or move to /g/. More people also visit /g/ than /sci/

>>14748472
No, you make ad hominen attacks in evasion.
Please, stop harrassing me.

>>14748545
I have not posted here anyway retard. I have replied to other peoples posts. So fuck you and your instructions. Fuck off you prick. I do not need your bullshjt advice.

>>14748551
I am the one presenting the 12000 rpm, so it must be you that is evading.

>>14748555
you flooding random threads with nonsense is against the rules. Either make your own thread or fuck off

>>14748555
Injecting COAM into a thread not about COAM objectively IS posting.

>>14745250
Nature, much space, no niggers. How is it related to a ghetto?

>>14748561
I am responding to relevant discussions on relevant threads with my relevant and important discovery.

>>14748541
>>>/g/88096860

>>14748562
If COAM is relevant then I am injecting it. And fuck you and your evasive denial you ducking retard.

>>14748568
This thread is about anti-Einstein people, not anti-COAM people though

>>14748568
You discovered what all fitst year students are taught, congratulations!

>>14748574
All first year students are taught that angular momentum is conserved and that is a plain lie.

>>14748576
How do you reply to this post: >>>/g/88096902

>>14748576
Yes, for the given information it is true.
That too is what all first year students are taught.

>>14748573
Since COAM falsifies relativity, or at the very least puts it into question until COAM can be guaranteed eradicated from it, some would misconstrue that hatred of Einstein, so it is relatedivity.

>>14748582
>Since COAM falsifies relativity
explain how

>>14748577
I don’t reply to idiotic childish stupidity.

>>14748585
how is it idiotic

>>14748589
How is it related to my argument?

>>14748590
why not reply

>>14748583
Or at the very least…
Read my fuckjng post before your reply you moron.

>>14748576
how is it a lie

>>14748592
Why should I reply to idiocy? Should I expect a reason where none exists?

>>14748593
Is he right? >>>/g/88096969

>>14748594
Angular momentum is not conserved. So telling them it is, is a lie.

>>14748597
see >>14748589

>>14748598
Fuck off you harassing cunt.

>>14748600
how so

>>14748601
Fuck off you harassing cunt.

>>14748603
is he right

>>14748604
Let’s try this differently. What evidence do you have that it is conserved?

>>14748611
Hamilton, Noether, and obvious isotropy of space. Well?

>>14748607
how am i harassing though

>>14748614
So you have a list of names when asked to show students that angular momentum is conserved?

>>14748616
I usually just link this video.
https://youtu.be/BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>>14748614
Is that how you convince first year students? Really?

I think you are fucking liar.

>>14748611
Lets try this dofferently, when using a system as described only by the equation, what evidence do you have that it is not conserved?
Remember, the system can only be inoacted by the three variables, no other forces.

>>14748618
see >>14748617

>>14748617
I think you are a fucking lying piece of shit. That is not how you convince a first year student of COAM. You are just desperate to avoid accepting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. So you make up shit as you go. Weasel.

>>14748625
Only be impacted by

>>14748627
Maybe that's not how students are introduced in Zimbabwe, but surely in Russia.

>>14748625
You are talking total shit here. The ball on a string demonstration is the reality we are trying to predict. We cannot predict it because the theory is wrong. How difficult is that?

>>14748627
You realy, REALLY, need to reread that physics textbook from page 1.

>>14748626
Fuck you you harassing piece of shit. Fuck off and stop being a cunt for no fucking reason. Psychotic fuck.

>>14748639
how so

>>14748629
In Russia they use a ball on a string demonstration and a ballerina. Both of which falsify the law you fucking decietful piece of shit asshole.

>>14748632
Ok, now properly describe all of the forces acting on the ball on a string system.
You won't, we all know that you won't.
You will evade or try to say that any other forces are irrelevant.
You cant recognize that you are using equations, that apply to a perfect system, on a system that is complex, not perfect.

>>14747625
I'm the Landau exposer guy. Some guy started shilling Landau nonstop and I started responding with my honest criticism of the books. That's not trolling.

>>14748646
no they don't, my retarded African friend

>>14748636
No I do not. You need to measure something and see that COAE is accurate. You argue from ignorance. Wake up.

>>14748651
I must not do that because my aim is to falsify COAM, so that is what I have to predict.
Apply mind please?

>>14748656
how so

>>14748653
Yes they fucking do. Just like everywhere else in the world. The examples “spin faster” and nobody measures anything for fear that the theory is wrong. It is totally insane.

>>14748662
again, wrong. you've never been to russia. Youre just some racist rhodesian schizo that lives in some gated community screaming about coam.

>>14748665
The fact is that you are literally afraid to measure. You come from Russia. So fucking what. Measure and show me that Russians are reasonable. Stop acting the same as everyone else, retard.

>>14748672
off topic.

>>14748673
That is exactly the topic being discussed you fucking ignorant retard.

>>14748676
eh, cant blame you i guess since you obviously have alzheimers but the point was that coam is introduced in russia through noethers theorem.

>>14748656
It is unscientific to disregard all the forcing acting on the system.

>>14748654
When taking measurements an honest person would recognize the errors in the measurement and also exactly what they are measuring.
Answer this honestly, in the ball on a string demonstration what happens to the ball once the demonstrator stops accelerating the ball?

>>14748684
Bullshit. That is exactly how a reductio ad absurdum works. It is unscientific to try and conflate experimental details with a theoretical physics paper paper

>>14748689
An honest and reasonable person would recognize that an error of magnitude cannot be explained reasonably by glossing over “friction”alities and accept that the law is false.

>>14748720
True, you do gloss over any other forces acting on the system.
As you imply, that makes you dishonest.

>>14748709
You have to at least try to make the experimental setup match the theoretical.
You make no such attempt.

>>14748681
You are lying, I believe.
But it is irrelevant.
COAM is falsified by my proof and your desperation to evade my proof by basically stamping your feet and neglecting the 12000 rpm which falsified it, is not reasonable behavior. So you show us that Russians are just as capable as westerners of abandoning rationality. Congrats.

>>14748733
really, its just you conveniently ignoring noethers theorem, thats all

>>14748731
I use the existing centuries old existing example. Are you saying that the existing physics is wrong?

>>14748709
It is NOT absurd to disregard real forcing acting on and against the system, that is how you deal with reality.

>>14748739
who conducted the first ball on a string demonstration?

>>14748726
No. I use existing physics equations which assume that friction is negligible in the demonstration because it is as has been confirmed independently by the LabRat’s confirmation of COAE.
Are you claiming that existing physics is wrong?

>>14748746
no, you just used the wrong equation. For your example, you need to use the drag equation

>>14748738
No. I apply COAM and the prediction is 12000 rpm.
What is Noether’s result?

>>14748751
noethers result is that because circles exist COAM must be true.

>>14748742
Yes, when doing theoretical physics, that is exactly how it works. We make a prediction which neglects friction and then we test it by minimizing friction in the experimental setup, like has been done in the ball on a string demonstration which is mainstream physics likely for centuries.

>>14748759
>ball on a string demonstration which is mainstream physics likely for centuries
proof?

>>14748749
No. My equations are referenced along with the example in the book. The only way my equations can be wrong is if existing physics is wrong. Are you saying that existing physics is wrong?

>>14747925
>Unfalsifiable means that there is no possibility to falsify
>My work could be falsified easily if it were false.

>>14748764
you just used the wrong equation. Do it with the drag equation and tell me the results

>>14748760
My equations are referenced and from a 35 year old physics book. So fuck you prove that it has not been mainstream For centuries you harassing cunt. Until then my proof stands and you have failed to address it.

>>14748769
>prove that it has not been mainstream For centuries
nah, you made the opposite claim so you have to now prove it

The anti Einstein retards do not believe in any scientific facts.
And /sci does not believe in any of them either.
Therefore /sci welcomes Einstein retards.
This actually goes for any retards, Einstein or otherwise.

>>14748763
Are you confused by the words you regurgitate, retard?

>>14748772
Nah. I don’t give a fuck how long it has been mainstream and neither do you you evasive cunt.

>>14748774
how does it feel to be a childless loser boomer arguing on an anime website all day long

>>14748776
you won't get to weasel out of this you evasive fag

>>14748766
Fuck off. My equations are referenced and you have to accept them as is, or you are literally arguing that my proof that physics is wrong, is wrong because physics is wrong.

>>14748783
do it with the drag eqn

>>14748756
I don’t give a shit what her results are. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop wasting both of our time with evasive bullshjt.

>>14748787
you asked about it in >>14748751
Man your Alzheimer's just keeps on getting worse

>>14748786
No. I have to do it according to the book which I am trying to falsify.
Fuck off with your evasive bullshjt. Stop grasping at straws.Address the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14748791
so you've "falsified" some old Rhodesian shit high school textbook. Great. How about you read a reputable textbook you massive retard?

>>14748790
You are intentionally harassing me instead of addressing the facts, cunt.

exhibit A >>14748797

>>14748796
My book is reputable and the simple fact is that any first year student asked to make this prediction will come up with 12000 rpm as the answer, or they will fail.

>>14748801
>My book is reputable
no

>>14748800
Yes, you do show very clearly that you are personally targeting me with harassment. The behavior you exhibit is reasonably described as being a cunt.

exhibit B >>14748805

>>14748802
Yes it is. Are you seriously attacking my physics book because my argument is so bulletproof.

>>14748783
No, it just shows that you dont know how to properly apply the equations you use.
This is literally first year physics basic introductory chapters.
You are being filtered by this and it is sad.

>>14748764
>My equations are referenced along with the example in the book
Does the example in the book account for drag?

>>14748809
If I were to send you a reputable physics book, would you debunk it?

>>14748806
Stop being a cunt. Address my paper. Idiot. Self incrimination is stupid.

exhibit C >>14748814

>>14748759
There was no attmept to minimize any forces in the system.

>>14748746
Wrong.
Those basic equations dont assume, they are for a perfect ayatem with NO other forces acting on it.

>>14748811
You are going in circles retard. My referenced equations are not in question here. 12000 rpm is the existing physics prediction and any first year student with a different answer to this question would fail. So you are insanely circling. For years. Mental case.

>>14748819
low iq post

>>14748812
Drag is assumed negligible and this is also confirmed to be true by the LabRat’s experiment.

>>14748823
it shouldnt be assumed negligible

>>14748813
My book is reputable and you are a fucking lying piece of shit. Fuck you.

>>14748827
how often has it been cited?

>>14748817
Yes there is. Otherwise you are literally claiming that existing physics is wrong. Are you claiming that existing physics is wrong?

>>14748709
Your "paper's" entire case is that it's absurd because the idealized model equations yield results that are absurd for a practical experiment, but idealized models rarely apply to a practical experiment without caveats.

The classic dice demonstration of radioactive half-life yields radically different results than the probability distribution function for a six-sided die predicts for a continuous decay... but that's because of practical limits of sample sizes and discrete rolls, not because the mathematics of probability are some giant conspiratorial lie.

>>14748818
Wrong. The equations are for the classic, centuries old open air, wobbling handed professor demonstration.
Stop being dishonest, please?

>>14748824
Yes it absolutely should and has been correctly assumed so by existing physics.
You are arguing that existing physics is wrong. Are you insane?

>>14748791
Then do it according to the book.
The system is defined only by r and v.
NO other forces, none.

>>14748829
Irrelevant. You are so fucking deceitful that you are literally trying to defeat my paper by attacking my physics book. Are you insane?

>>14745250
cute lolis

>>14748831
No, i very clearly claimed that no attempt was made to minimize any external forces.
I clearly said as much in the post you replied to.

>>14748851
answer the question

>>14748819
So what, you use an equation from a textbook.
That doesn't mean that you are not using it incorrectly.

>>14748836
That is called a straw man logical fallacy argument.
Stop being dishonest and unscientific.
You have to rebut my paper, not neglect it and make excuses.

>>14748843
The 12000 rpm is by the book retard.

>>14748837
No, the equations are not for that demonstration.
You have things ass backwards.

>>14748855
Well if you are claiming that the existing example is a bad example then you are unreasonable. You are literally claiming that existing physics is wrong. Are you insane?

>>14748839
If the force impacts the system then it should be accounted for. Outside of physics 101 students learn how to build on the basics taught in 101.

>>14748857
No. Address my paper.
Stop asking me questions that have got fuck all to do with anything in my paper.

>>14748875
you said the book you got the stuff from is reputable. Tell me the number of citations it has.

>>14748865
Fuck you. Referenced equations have to be accepted as is. Fucking regard.

>>14748869
Someone somewhere failed you badly if you cant see that basic physics starts with ideal perfect syatems to teach the basic concepts onto which most complicated physics is built.

>>14748873
12000 rpm is the prediction and your bullshjt is ducking insane. Retard.

>>14748863
Your ball on a string is not by the book... Damn you are one dense idiot.

>>14748877
I am not a scientist, but I know that I am allowed to use my university physics book as a reference and if you can’t defeat my paper then you are being unreasonable to blame my book for being wrong.

>>14748880
Ive not once said the the referneced equations are false. Ive beensaying all along they are bot the appropriate equation for your system.

>>14748882
No, you are failing badly to recognize that a theory which makes bad predictions is wrong.

>>14748883
And if the ball on a string perfectly adhered to the limitations of just a mass on a radius at a know velocity then 12000 would be true.
But, you chose to use an example that is impacted by additinal forces that results in a net decrease in velocity over time.

>>14748889
No. You are lying. The equations for COAM must be the right equations for an example of COAM.

>>14748887
serious scientists don't use some introductory book as references. They use reference books

>>14748896
You have to show 12000 rpm before you claim it otherwise you are speculating.
Why go in circles for years. How many times are you going to bring up the same defeated shit, retard?

>>14748902
I am allowed to use my book and I have no interest in becoming a scientist. Stop being evasive, retard.

>>14748913
serious scientists don't use some introductory book as references. They use reference books

>>14748891
It doesnt make bad predictions.
If you have an object and only that object rotating with a known velocity at a known radius from a point and you reduce that radius...the AM is conserved, unless an additional force changes the system.
Physics 101 and most likely also part of the explanation in you text book.

>>14748897
True, if the example was limited to COAM but your real world example is more complex than the simple equation.

>>14748926
It is an existing physics example. Idiot. You argue that existing physics is wrong. Are you insane?

>>14748903
I've only been doing this for a month... You have be been doing this for years.
Pure insanity.

>>14748917
12000 rpm is directly predicted by the “law”of COAM. 12000rpm is objectively wrong. COAM is objectively wrong. This is logic.

>>14748930
No, I'm showing that you simple don't understand the example.
Physics 101, you are filtered literally by the professor introducing the most basic of material introduced in the first few lessons.

>>14748915
It does not matter. I used my physics book and you don’t have a different prediction, so you are just lying and weaseling. Are you insane?

>>14748938
No, you simply can't remove all other factors negativeltly impacting a real world demonstration.

>>14748931
You think you are the only one going in circles. You think you are unique?
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. How do you just neglect that?

>>14748939
No. You are neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Are you insane?

>>14748947
I have to apply the equations as per existing physics as referenced.
Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM.
Stop going in circles like a retarded clown.

>>14748823
>Drag is assumed negligible
Drag is rarely negligible in practical experiments.

Hell, something as simple as dropping a baseball can get thrown off by drag enough to conflict with freefall predictions for drops of more than a couple meters depending on the mass and size of the ball. For a ball with a drag coefficient C ~ 0.5, a radius of 10 cm, and a mass of 0.15 kg (approximately the properties of a baseball), at just ~9 meters drop distance you're already talking a 10% correction, by 45 meters a 50% correction.

You're claiming that the book model predicts the ball should be spinning at ludicrous speed, yet simultaneously claiming that drag should have no practical consideration.

>>14748952
I never said nor implied i am unique in this context.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

>>14748981
Drag is assumed negligible for the ball on a string and since the example is reliable and consistent and repeatable and mainstream for fuckjng centuries. You are simply being an evasive cunt and trying to claim that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong. Are you fucking mental or something you circular fucking retard.

>>14748992
Fuck off with this evasive ad hominem you piece of shit. Address my paper or FUCK OFF.

>>14748962
You have not referenced here, or lately, what the physics is from that chaoter of your textbook. I do recall seems pictures from the textbook but you dont post those anymore.

>>14748993
>Drag is assumed negligible for the ball on a string
why do you assume it to be negligible when it's not

>>14748995
I have addressed your paper, countless times.

>>14749000
I would say don't get him started but he already is.
His circular posting momentum I believe validates COAM... He is immune to outside forces therefore he just going to go on forever.

>>14749005
I am right and you are literally neglecting the evidence like a flat earther. 12000 rpm is absurd. A theory or “law” which makes absurd predictions is mistaken. This is plain and clear science by the scientific method.

>>14749002
Since you have failed to point out an equation number and explain the error within it which stands up to rebuttal, you have to accept the conclusion.
You are neglecting my proof.

>>14748998
So you literally argue in circles and bring up the same defeated argument because you imagine that you haven’t lost the discussion on this forum yet.
Are you insane?
You are out of your fuckjng mind, aren’t you?

>>14749063
Ive never once neglected any 'evidence' with regards to your posts.
You of the other hand have started several times that you willfully and without any scientific reasoning neglect evidence contrary to your paper.
You cant hide from your own posts.

>>14745906
>t. 2018 poster
"/board/ is killing /otherboard/" is the oldest cope on this website newfriend.

>>14749065
We have been over this before, you are using the wrong equations for the example you chose.
Just a little more and you get your 300!

>>14749072
The only evidence which can counter my paper reasonably is an equation number which can be rigorously falsified.
Contradicting the conclusion is formal logic fallacy.

>>14749063
>A theory or “law” which makes absurd predictions is mistaken.
The theory of gravity predicts a raindrop falling from a kilometer should hit the Earth at ~140 m/s, or about Mach 0.4. In actuality a raindrop falling to Earth from that height is hitting the ground at... maybe 8-10 m/s.
Does this mean the theory of gravity is wrong?
No, it just means that the idealized model is ignoring factors that are important in a practical, real-world scenario.

Langmuir's plasma probe model works great for high temperature, low pressure bulk plasmas, but immediately diverges when you start dealing with high pressure plasmas, low temperature plasmas, RF plasmas, low power DC discharges, magnetized plasmas, etc. etc. etc.
Does this mean Langmuir's model gets thrown out and the underlying physics are garbage?
No, it just means that in a lot of practical plasmas there are other factors that you need to take into consideration (collisions, scattering, mobility-limited motion, magnetic forces, ponderomotive effects, etc. etc. etc.)

>>14749075
Why are you so desperate to censor?
The truth hurts.
Accept the truth and it will set you free

>>14749087
Nobody's censoring you, as evidenced by the 800 bajillion posts you've made here, reddit, twitter, etc.

They're just calling you a faggot.

>>14749087
Who said anything about censoring?
I certainly didn't, nor did i imply it.
The problem here is that you are not paying attention to what you post.
See >>14748537

>>14749099
Address my paper please?

>>14749107
I did in the /g/ thread, check it out

>>14749107
Im the You and as i stared just a few posts above, ive already addressed your paper multiple times.

>>14749116
Your argument has to stand up to rebuttal, retard that is desperate to hit the bump limit because she has no idea how it works. Every thread is going to die you stupid bitch. Are you going to spend the rest of your life pursuing idiotic goals. Mental case.

>>14749135
Im not desparate to hit the bump limit. You are the one that is proud of high post counts.
I'm not pursuing idioc goals, so no, I'm not spending any time doing such.

>>14749151
Psychopath bitch can’t face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM probably because she has lesbian fantasies about Noether or something.

>>14749158
I've not once posted about Noether.
Stop harassing me with your unfounded insults.

>>14749158
Crack of what you post.
you don't bother to follow a conversation backwards through the replies to ensure that you were are replying appropriately.
You don't want any sort of honest discussion you just want to hear yourself scream.

>>14749166
That first sentence was supposed to be
You don't keep track of what you post.

>>14749166
You just insult me all the way to the bumb limit because you can’t defeat me using reason. My paper is so fucking rigorous that the biggest bitch in the industry can’t fault it.

>>14749175
The whole post is incomprehensible nonsense. Grow the fuck up bitch. Concede when you have so obviously lost. Nutcase.

>>14749180
Ive been fairly cordial with you.
Im not in the industry, i dont know who you have me confused with.

>>14749180
>My paper is so fucking rigorous it can't be faulted
If that were true, you would be off making billions of dollars patenting devices that exploit your amazing, world-changing discovery instead of arguing on three dozen 4chan/reddit/twitter threads for 18 hours a day.

>>14749183
What dont you undwrstand about not keeping track of what you post?
About checking a frw replies to make sure that the person you are replying to is the intended recepient and that your reply follows the successive line of post/reply?

>>14749187
Fuck you.

Show us an experiment and its steps that proves conservation of angular momentum as false. Prove your theory or drink a bottle of hydrazine, faggatron

>>14749188
Please stop with the harassment and the insults.
That is called as hominem and is illogical and unscientific.

>>14749186
Is that why it seems like he is replying to a different line of posts, because he is doing this on multiple boards and sites?

>>14749200
As near as I can tell this is basically all he does every day.

>>14749231
If this was a play, could we write up as a classic Greek tragedy?
The guy wont let anything phase his, he gets up to speed and the only thing stopping him of the thread going off the bottom of the page. Repeat.

>>14748897
Goodness, John. If Chantal could see you now she would be like "thank god I dodged a bullet getting away from that whackjob"

>>14745954
This is beautiful

>>14748561
I brought him up, so he isn't spamming

>>14743907
>a white man
you mean the jewish guy who openly said that white people don't know what it's like to be poor?
I hope someone rapes your mom in the mouth dude