/sci/ - Science & Math

What about 12,000 rpm?

>>14749010
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14749009
>>>/sci/

>>14749012
Are you insane, retard.

>>14749011
>>14749009
Inb4 300 replies

>>14749011
Sup John, long time no see
why were you out of sci and b?

>>14749009
i admire your autistic schizophrenic dedication to this topic

>>14749009
What is your hypothesis as to how it is not being conserved?

>>14749144
he was always here, he just shat up random physics threads

>>14749009
How do you respond: >>>/g/88096860

>>14749009

>>14749210
I suspected that. But there was a sharp decline in COAM 12,000RPM threads

>>14749237
Where does Dennis Morris belong on this scale?
https://youtu.be/y55F-WUsYlQ
https://youtu.be/8Qv0zJdsW7s

>if the net force/torque on an object is zero, its total linear/angular momentum is conserved
>momentum isn't conserved in this case where a net force/torque acts on an object! i've disproved conservation of momentum!

>>14749210
on any given day he has like two dozen threads across a half a dozen boards, and a bunch of reddit/twitter threads.

>>14750137
I am suspended on Twitter so you have no idea what you are talking about retard.

The fact that you have a hernia about me trying to present my discovery shows that you are suffering psychosis.

What difference does it make to your life that you have to whine about my posts.

Wtf retard???

>>14750505
you have a second twitter account, faggot, don't lie. You spend 20 hours a day on the internet babbling about COAM. You're a fucking loser

>>14749144
Are you a personal friend of mine now, or are you suffering some psycho version of Stockholm syndrome?
You can’t defeat my paper but you won’t accept the conclusion and somehow this makes you a friend of mine???
retard.

>>14749153
Angular energy is conserved and this is confirmed by independent experiment.

>>14749210
Have you got a psychotic issue with me presenting my discovery, retard? Wtf.

>>14749639
This is delusional nonsense. What the fuck is your issue with me presenting my discovery, retard? Wtf??

>>14749009
Garbage thread, so let me derail it to ask what books I should read to learn physics?

>>14750133
Well conservation of momentum can be confirmed in the lab, so it is true no matter how much you fake shit.

COAM, on the other hand is false precisely because it is impossible to confirm in the lab.

Ie: the scientific method falsified COAM. Retard.

>>14750520
Landau-Lifshitz, Course of Theoretical Physics

>>14750137
Do you have a personal issue with me presenting my discovery, retard. Wtf???

>>14750520
Suffer through undergrad material, learn quantum field theory asap.

For undergrad physics. Just read these Schutz's GR book for SR, shankar's QM, sakurai's QM, lahiri and pal's QFT, peskin and schroeder's QFT + all Landau & Lifshitz books. After that, both of the Deligne books on QFT + ST

For math, read baez-gauge fields, bertlmann-anomalies in qft, https://web.evanchen.cc/napkin.html , schlichenmaier-riemann surfaces, http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf
http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGnov1817public.pdf & Kato's "Heart of Cohomology" for intuition
(encyclopedia of mathematical sciences) Algebra I–X
(encyclopedia of mathematical sciences) Algebraic Geometry I–IV
This book is the most friendly serious book to start

https://www.claymath.org/library/monographs/cmim01c.pdf

https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr3740_17/grbook.pdf

Then after you're finally at what mathematicians and physicists actually care about when they talk about rigorous physics.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields4.pdf

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+field+theory

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/search?query=quantum+field+theory

>>14750511
No. I have not been on Twitter.

Any activity that you see on Twitter is an impersonator.

He is probably trying to make me look stupid.

Please inform me of any activities there?

>>14750520
Here's some I like

Schutz's GR book
Sakurai's QM
Weinberg's QM
Lahiri and Pal QFT
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html
Peskin and Schroeder QFT
Weinbergs 3 QFT volumes
Bertlmann. Anomalies in QFT
Zinn-Justin. QFT and critical phenomena
https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0204014
Coleman. Aspects of symmetry
Hori et al. Mirror symmetry
Georgi. lie algebras in particle physics
Cahn. semisimple lie algebras

>>14750520
More likely that I can derail your thread because retards are triggered by my discovery and nobody gives a shit about your book retard.

>>14750520
Up to Schutz is the easier stuff. No ordering after.
Thompson - Calculus Made Easy
Rosenlicht - Introduction to Analysis
Baez & Munian - Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity (first half)
Nering - Linear Algebra
Axler - Linear Algebra Done Right
Artin - Algebra
Smith et al. - Invitation to Algebraic Geometry
Evan Chen - An Infinitely Large Napkin
Hestenes - Reforming the Mathematical Language of Physics (Geometric Algebra)
Gamelin - Complex Analysis
Schutz - Introduction to General Relativity (just for tensors)
Rotman - Advanced Modern Algebra
Lieb & Loss - Analysis
Bertlmann - Anomalies in Quantum Field Theory (first part)
Schlichenmaier - Riemann Surfaces, Algebraic Curves, and Moduli Spaces
Hori et al. - Mirror Symmetry (first part)
Rubakov - Classical Theory of Gauge Fields
Lee - Smooth Manifolds
Tu - Introduction to Manifolds
Isham - Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists
Cahn - Semi-simple Lie Algebras
Guillemin & Pollack - Differential Topology
Hatcher - Algebraic Topology
Garrity - Electricity and Magnetism for Mathematicians
Griffiths & Harris - Principles of Algebraic Geometry
Bost - Introduction to Compact Riemann Surfaces, Jacobians, and Abelian Varieties
Warner - Foundations of Differentiable Manifolds and Lie Groups
Eisenbud - Geometry of Schemes
Geroch - Mathematical Physics
Fecko - Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists
Nair - Quantum Field Theory (Chapter 14)
Schottenloher - A Mathematical Introduction to Conformal Field Theory
Narasimhan - Complex Analysis in One Variable
Sagan - The Symmetric Group
Etingof - Introduction to Representation Theory
Atiyah & MacDonald - Commutative Algebra
Eisenbud & Harris - Commutative Algebra with a view towards algebraic geometry
Bott & Tu - Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
May - A Concise Course in Algebraic Topology
Ramond - Group Theory
Berndt - An Introduction to Symplectic Geometry

>>14750520
Nolting is pretty great for undergrad stuff

>>14750536
What kind of retard has such a long post of bullshit prepared in attempt to thwart a thread that he is afraid to face? Are you a fucking psychopath?

>>14750520
rotman. advanced modern algebra
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. algebra i-viii
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. topology i-ii
atiyah. commutative algebra
baez. gauge fields knots and gravity
loomis and sternberg. advanced calculus
smith. invitation to algebraic geometry
guillemin. differential topology
schlichenmaier. riemann surfaces algebraic curves and moduli spaces
griffiths. principles of algebraic geometry
eisenbud. geometry of schemes
berndt. symplectic geometry
shafarevich. basic algebraic geometry
harris. algebraic geometry
lang. algebra
choquet-bruhat. analysis manifolds and physics
qing liu. algebraic geometry and arithmetic curves
hatcher. algebraic topology
huybrechts. complex geometry
garrity. electricity and magnetism for mathematicians
nering. elementary linear algebra
eisenbud. commutative algebra
artin. algebra
geroch. mathematical physics
sagan. the symmetric group
etingof. introduction to representation theory
rosenlicht. introduction to analysis
vakil. lecture notes on algebraic geometry
lieb and loss. analysis
narasimhan. complex analysis
gamelin. complex analysis
ahlfors. complex analysis
thompson. calculus made easy
tu. introduction to manifolds
fecko. differential geometry and lie groups for physicists
swinnerton-dyer. analytic theory of abelian varieties
mumford. abelian varieties
landau and lifshitz. a course of theoretical physics
zinn-justin. qft and critical phenomena
coleman. aspects of symmetry
zettili. quantum mechanics
deligne et al. quantum fields and strings
sakurai. quantum mechanics
shankar. quantum mechanics
weinberg. lectures on quantum mechanics
weinberg. quantum theory of fields
schutz. introduction to general relativity
schroeder. thermal physics
sommerfeld. lectures on theoretical physics

>>14750520
>>14750551
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. algebraic geometry i-iv
shiryaev. probability I and II
soare. recursively enumerable sets and degrees
gorodentsev. algebraic geometry
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. geometry i-iv
borceaux. handbook of categorical algebra 1-3
routh. treatise on analytical statics
jacobs. categorical logic
routh. treatise on the dynamics of particles & system of rigid bodies
bertlmann. anomalies in qft
lawvere. conceptual mathematics
sacks. higher recursion theory
hawking and ellis. large scale structure of space-time
peskin. quantum field theory
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. number theory i-iii
ash and knight. computable structures
pathria. statistical mechanics
downey and hirschfeldt. algorithmic randomness
o'neill. geometry of kerr black holes
whittaker. treatise on the analytical dynamics of particles and rigid bodies
lahiri and pal. first book of qft
ryder. qft
nair. qft
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. general topology i-iii
lancaster. qft for the gifted amateur
hori. mirror symmetry
hamilton. gr
takhtajan. qm
hall. quantum theory for mathematicians
schottenloher. mathematical intro to conformal field theory
georgi. weak interactions
marker. model theory
hott book
hamilton. mathematical gauge theory
quigg. gauge theories of the weak strong
hennaeaux. quantization of gauge systems
haag. local quantum physics
simpson. subsystems of second order arithmetic
barendregt. lambda calculus
cooper. computability theory
gabbay et al. handbook of philosophial logic, vol 1-18
abraham and marsden. foundations of mechanics
di francesco. conformal field theory
cohen-tannoudji. quantum mechanics
dutsch. from classical field theory to qft
kaku. qft
polchinski. string theory
vaid. lqg for the bewildered
woit. quantum theory groups and representations
schwichtenberg. physics from symmetry
siegel. fields4.pdf

>>14750520
>>14750551
>>14750552
arnol'd kozlov neishtadt. mathematical aspects of classical and celestial mechanics
simmons and wainer. proof theory
lurie. higher topos theory
chatzidakis et al. model theory
freudenburg. algebraic theory of locally nilpotent derivations
onishchick. lie groups and lie algebras i-ii
blackadar. operator algebras
lurie. elliptic cohomology i
bouscaren et al. algebraic model theory
tevelev. projective duality and homogenous spaces
eisenbud. geometry of schemes
gamkrelidze, nikol'skii, maz'ya. analysis i-iv
lurie. spectral algebraic geometry
smythe. static and dynamic electricity
von neumann. mathematical foundations for quantum mechanics
aspinwall. dirichlet branes and mirror symmetry
derksen. computational invariant theory
renner. linear algebraic monoids
polyakov. gauge fields and strings
beisert et al. review of ads/cft integrability: an overview
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. dynamical systems i-x
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. partial differential equations i-ix
encyclopedia of mathematical sciences. several complex variables i-vii

>>14750524
>COAM, on the other hand is false precisely because it is impossible to confirm in the lab.
Except for this simple experiment designed with materials that (You) have access to.
>inb4: But that has a fixed radius! I don't know what moment of inertia is!

>>14750520
ust to get a taste of what's involved.

Artin algebra. Hermann lie groups. Baez gauge fields. Bertlmann anomalies in qft. Isham diferential geometry. Bott Tu differential forms in alg topology. Hatcher alg topology. Cahn semisimple lie algebras. Schlichenmaier riemann surfaces. Griffiths Harris alg geometry. Guillemin Pollack differential topology. Geroch mathematical physics. Hori mirror symmetry. Zinn-Justin qft. Nair qft. Rubakov gauge theory. Scharf finite qed. Henneaux and Teitelboim quantization of gauge systems. Schottenloher conformal field theory. Di Francesco conformal field theory. Henkel conformal invariance. Warner differentiable manifolds. Milnor characteristic classes.

As for degrees. It's probably best to just finish up your math degree if it's easier to finish it. Most of undergrad math and physics is irrelevant to modern math and physics so it won't matter too much. At the very least I would recommend getting a good quantum mechanics and quantum field theory course done. The sooner you see this stuff the better if you plan on doing physics. Things really open up once you know it.

>>14750560
Except that you have never seen any example of this experiment which confirms COAM, so you are a total fucking wishful thinking retard.

>>14750520
based

>>14750598
Retarded. Fuck off morons. Stop the evasive shit. Wtf is wrong with you retards. Evasion is scientific now. Fucking flat earth religious fanatics.

>>14750520
feynman lectures

>>14750606
14750603

>>14750614
schizo post

>>14750617
Stop trolling you low iq fuck.

>>14750621
>low iq
lol says you

>>14750622
Stop trolling retard. I have a high iq. So you are fucking delusional too.

>>14750624
>I have a high iq
no you don't

>>14750624
>I have a high iq
Prove it. Do this quick text https://serebriakoff-advanced-culture-fair-test.netlify.app/

>>14750639
I have passed the mensa test so I have nothing to prove, retard.

>>14750644
>have passed the mensa test
no you haven't. Do the test, low iq moron https://serebriakoff-advanced-culture-fair-test.netlify.app/

>>14750651
I have passed the mensa test and have been a member for many years. Retard. How could I possibly write a maths paper which nobody can fault otherwise, moron. Fuck off and stop trolling.

>>14750656
>I have passed the mensa test
If so, you'd be in the mensa database but I can't find you. Stop lying

>>14750664
I am not paid up. But if you check with Mensa South Africa they will tell you the truth. Anyway. Why the fuck do I care if a trolling fucking retard believes me or not. Go fuck yourself.

>>14750669
Again, you'd be on the mensa website but you aren't. It's a lie

>>14750670
Again. Go fuck yourself.

>>14750679
https://serebriakoff-advanced-culture-fair-test.netlify.app/

>>14750681
What part of “go and fuck yourself” don’t you understand retard.

>>14750685
https://serebriakoff-advanced-culture-fair-test.netlify.app/

>>14750688
Go and fuck your self retard.
You are the same fucker who is denying my Mensa membership after seeing my membership card. What kind of ignorant retard behaves like that. Fuck you.

>>14750692
https://serebriakoff-advanced-culture-fair-test.netlify.app/

>>14750694
I have no reason to prove anything to you about my iq moron now fuck off and stop trolling. Are you mentally deficient or something?

>>14750698
https://serebriakoff-advanced-culture-fair-test.netlify.app/

>>14750699
Fuck you mental case.

>>14750551
>>14750552
>>14750553
based recommendations

>>14750931
If you are fucking retard, yea. Otherwise this is plain fucking evasion of the op.

Fuck off retard.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop weaseling you ignorant fuck.

>>14750931
I kind of wish they forced us to use more books at uni. The only times I get recommended books is when I ask about details on a topic that is not covered in class.
Threads about book recommendations are nice as usual.

>>14751005
Why don’t you go to a thread that is about books you fucking ignorant evasive regard. Fuck you.

>>14750520
seconding Nolting

>>14751040
Fuck off retard. The fact that you are desperately evading and others also desperately evade dos not justify your fuck up behaviour.

>>14749009
unironically why do we conserve angular momentum instead of angular energy? From what I know of physics we do the former but surely a value independent of mass is better?

>>14751313
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy

>>14751313
Engineers conserve angular energy and neglect the fact that they contradict COAM, because they do what works and are too chicken shit to face up to the scientists who are retarded and conserve angular momentum by stupid mistake.

>>14749237
>PBS Space Time more cringe that 3b1b, Veritasium, ElectroBOOM, and Cody's lab
>Veritsasium not completely popsci
>Kurzegesagt not completely cringe
>Calls a femboy channel the more informative
>A furry channel and some gay-ass weeb channel are one of the most "based"

This is 50% out of date nonsense (popsci ones) and 50% wrong unless you're a discord tranny

>>14751335
When you spin up a gyroscope by hand, where does the rotational energy come from (since it's conserved as you claim)? When you grab it and stop it, where did the energy go?

>>14751438
Wtf are you talking about retard?
If you apply significant torque then you change the energy, obviously. Fuck off with this idiotic bullshit.

>>14751503
But you aren't spinning so you don't have any rotational energy. Yet you are increasing the rotational energy of something else. Since rotational energy is conserved (as you claim), clearly it must be coming from somewhere. The question is where.

>>14751531
That is idiotic. Address the fact that 12000 objectively falsifies COAM and stop this irrational red herring bullshit.

>>14751532
But where is the energy?

>>14751551
Where is the 12000 rpm?

>>14751560
You proposed an alternative but can't defend it?

>>14751575
My proof is that COAM is false. Address it and stop being evasive. Retard.

>>14751584
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14751584
based

>>14749011
Is this playschool level proof meant to be serious or a joke? I honestly can't tell.

It's logic is on the level of "2 + 2 = 4 which means water is dry"

>>14751587
FUCK YOU AND YOUR ADHOMINEM YOU FUCKING CUNT.

>>14751588
I am not an academic. I am an inventor and a successful businessman.

>>14751588
It shows that 2 + 2 does not equal 12000 rpm.
Fuck your and your ad hominem you piece of shit.

>>14751592
here's what a real proof looks like https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/pm110.643.html

>>14751591
Fuck you and your ad hominem you piece of fucking dog-shit.

>>14751584
kek

>>14751593
You have failed to falsify my proof, so mine is a real proof. Now fuck off with your evasive red-herring bullshit and accept my conclusion.

>>14751595
>mfw you finally hang yourself and as you're choking you start spinning at 1200000 rpm

>>14751596
Fuck you you piece of shit.

>>14751584
holy shit he looks stupid

>>14751600
FUCK OFF WITH YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU EVASIVE CHICKEN SHIT CUNT.

>>14751602
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU CUNT.
Address the topic or shut the fuck up.

>>14751584
my fucking sides

>>14751607
You think that someone finding the dumbest looking frame of a video and posting it is good science now you ignorant piece of shit. Fuck you.

>>14751591
> I am not an academic
That much is obvious. Did you even complete school?
> I am an inventor
A ball on a string does not make you an inventor.

>>14751613
I am a professional inventor and owner of a research and development company and I am living off of my own products that I have invented.

Now fuck off with your fucking ad hominem and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM you evasive nasty piece of shit.

>>14751617
nah, you're just a retired retarded boomer living off welfare

>>14751604
Why do you care about this so much? Maybe the world is not ready for your revised physics, but you can always go back to being a successful businessman and inventor.

>>14751617
none of that is true. you write like someone in the middle of a mental breakdown.

>>14751624
>schizophrenic or dementia or both
>successful businessman
No, his brain is fried.

>>14751625
Even the best of us fall prey to mental breakdowns sometimes. It's not easy to be a misunderstood genius, anon.

>>14751632
For every misunderstood genius there are a thousand delusional idiots.

>>14751636
That's right. A thousand of you for one of me.

>>14751632
All of you are having a mental breakdown. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. You make lame excuses and neglect the simple truth.

That is literally mentally deficient behavior.

All of you fucking retards are so afraid to face the truth that your mind gets switched off.

Mental.

> this thread

>>14751584
The face of someone uncorrupted by coherent thoughts.

>>14751643
Do you ever have moments of doubt and regret? Does the thought ever creep on you that your life was better before you objectively falsified COAM?

>>14751650
Fuck you you evasive piece of shit.

>>14751649
Rebuttal number 19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals
Now fuck off you idiot

>>14751653
Of course life was better before I was being ostracized and slandered you fucking moron. Now fuck off.

>>14751661
I have tutored a university student who entered without even having the basics of algebra down and he was still less retarded than you.

Maybe John enjoys the verbal abuse and that's why he continues to post his incoherent ramblings on 4chan? We're all being played because he gets off on this.

>>14751676
>Of course life was better before I was being ostracized and slandered
So why do you keep this up? It's only making your life worse.

>>14751693
Because of his overinflated ego and narcissism.

>>14751696
I wasn't talking to you, nigger.

>>14751698
Too bad

>>14751693
Because I am right and I cannot pretend otherwise just because you are afraid of the truth.

>>14751801
>I am right
Okay.

>I cannot pretend otherwise
Who said you need to pretend otherwise? I'm just saying maybe you could stop posing. Then you can be true to yourself and move on with your life without getting assaulted by all these truth-hating COAM bigots.

>>14751813
posting*

>>14751692
Fuck you. You are poisoning the well. Me jerking off to your verbal abuse does not validate COAM. Disgusting character assassination.

>>14751835
>Me jerking off to your verbal abuse does not validate COAM.

>>14751835
Why the fuck would you impersonate me? FUCK OFF YOU CUNT.

>>14751813
This is a historically important discovery you ignorant fuck.

>>14751874
>This is a historically important discovery
So what? Let the ignorant suffer the consequences of the COAM religion. There's no reason to make yourself into a martyr, sir.

>>14749009
>>14749011

Put bearings in your ball + string experiment and record the improved RPM. Then go eat a penis.

>>14751900
With knowledge comes responsibility.
If I don’t do this then humanity will remain stupid for another 300 years.

>>14751908
>If I don’t do this then humanity will remain stupid for another 300 years.
What do you care? You'll be dead in 30.

>>14751906
I can’t change the example. I have to use the existing physics. Go fuck yourself you ignorant pussy.

>>14751912
I have an obligation to present what I have discovered. Are you fucking stupid or something.

>>14751915
>I have an obligation to present what I have discovered.
You have already presented it. Time to leave the stage, sir.

>>14751921
I have an obligation to ensure that it is addressed, retard.

>>14749009
Mandlbaur bro shut the fuck up and do something useful with the rest of your life useless old fuck

>>14752037
>I have an obligation
Why? Are you some kind of a slave to society? I thought you were a truly independent free thinker.

>>14752049
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF STINKING SHIT.

>>14752055
saying ad hom over and over again won't change the fact that you're a low iq, old, miserable, childless loser who spends all of his day on 4chan schizoposting about angular momentum

>>14752055
Holy shit it's the legend himself bro I was just trying to grab your attention PLEASE SIGN A SHEET OF PAPER AND POST THE PIC MANDLBAUR I AM A BIG FAN

>>14752063
It is impossible for me to commit ad hominem against a person who is evading the argument you small dick asshole.

>>14752064
Stop being a fan of me and recognize that physics is mistaken, please?

>>14750533
your "discovery", lol.
besides, prove you are the Mandelbaur. copycat trolls abound.

>>14751871
This impersonation is a character assassination. Poisoning the well does not validate COAM. My personal BDSM fetishes do not invalidate my disproof of COAM. Now FUCK OFF you DISGUSTING IMPOSTER

Hello my name is John Mandlbaur and there is a gay sex dungeon in the basement of my business. I post nonsense on the internet to hide my insecurities relating to my sexual attraction toward men.

>>14752175
Fuck you you piece of shit imposter. I will never use my real name on an anonymous forum. Fuck off.

>>14752216
FUCK YOU. WTF IS THIS INSANITY. I have not done anything to deserve this stupidity. Just go fuck yourself
Are you so afraid to face the fact that 12000 falsifies COAM that you imagine intentionally harassing the person who made the discovery is reasonable behavior. This is childish stupidity. Wtf??

>>14752221
You are an imposter. Everyone knows I, John Mandlbaur, happily and openly post my own name on my own disproof of COAM. Fuck off loser. You wish you could be me. I have a hay sex dungeon in my basement. I got monkey pox on my balls last week, but it's already gone. If you're nice I might let you DP my mistress with me, but I have to take the ass okay?

> Text Text

>>14752246
Fuck you retarded asshole.

>>14752228
>I have not done anything to deserve this stupidity.
But you have. For example, you posted this retarded spam thread.

>>14752339
I am presenting my discovery. Why do I deserve to be personally attacked for trying to make the world a better place?

>>14752342
Why, if your goal is to make the world a better place, do you reject so many genuine questions? And especially in such an abrasive tone?

>>14752342
Because your delusions of grandeur have nothing to do with reality.

>>14752349
I have never rejected any reasonable question at all. Ever.
I have pointed out all the logical fallacy and defended myself from character assassination like you are doing right now.

>>14752355
There is no delusion. I face incessant character assassination, like this, and I feel absolutely shit about it.

>>14752359
How am I partaking in character assassination when you've, multiple times, been asked to tell us what you mean by, say, a "traditional argument fallacy" yet refuse to do so? You keep on bringing that word up, and it should thus be clear to any-fucking-one that it is NOT obvious what you mean by that or how that refutes anything

>>14752371
I have never refused to explain what an appeal to tradition logical fallacy is and nobody has ever asked because it is self fucking explanatory you lying piece of shit.
Now fuck off.

>>14752362
Maybe stop being such an abrasive sack of shit?

>>14752342
yeah, people went to moon and launched shit to mars with a flawed basic physics. Had they known about COAM 12000rpm max they'd probably be on intergalactic space travel by now.

>>14752395
Alright then. Explain how presenting a different way of deriving COAM is an "appeal to tradition logical fallacy".

What the fuck is COAM, why is it mentioned over 30 times ITT, and why does it sound like COOM?

>>14752432
John is a sexual deviant who's very insecure about it so he lashes out on the people on the internet.

>>14752441
Fuck off you piece of shit. 12000 rpm falsifies COAM face that instead of insulting me.

>>14752432
Conservation of angular momentum is false.

>>14752629
Countless experiments empirically validate 12000 rpm.

>>14752633
Proof?

>>14752412
You can present as many ways as you like of deriving COAM and it will never address my paper.
Of course it is fucking appeal to tradition logical fallacy you idiot.
Not only that but it is a direct contradiction of my conclusion which is a formal logic fallacy you refuckingtard.

>>14751584
You can just see the mental illness on his face.

>>14752410
Yes, if they knew that angular momentum is not conserved, physics would be entirely different and actually useful.
Engineers do not conserve angular momentum. They conserve angular energy because that is what works. You are a delusional engineer who thinks that in the equation L = r x p, he can conserve the magnitude of p and change r and that L will also be conserved which is mathematically impossible, retard.
Now do like all engineers do and bury your head in the sand and disappear because you are chickenshit to face facts.

>>14752643
What's wrong with tradition?

>>14752403
I am not abusive you lying slandering piece of shit.
I present my work and defend my work from logical fallacy and myself from exactly this kind of character assassination. Face the fact that COAM is false and stop insulting me you piece of stinking shit.
Fuck you and fuck off if you can’t address my discovery. Wtf is wrong with you retards.

>>14752654
You do know that that "x" in this equation is a cross product, right?

>>14752693
he's already debunked the cross product https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361388725_The_product_rule_cross_product_disparity

>>14752730
You didn't. You just showed that you don't know anything about vector operations.

>>14752659
You're being abrasive right now you lying faggot. This is why everybody hates you.

>>14752654
You're about you work out the "entirely different" physics on mechanics, dynamics, astrophysics using your theory? That'd be a game changer

>>14749009
I told you this before but you didn't listen. Stop being a retard and listen this time.

You are right. In something like a tetherball wrapping around pole, kinetic energy is conserved and angular momentum is not. This is standard physics, it is not revolutionary.

In the ball on a string demonstration where a professor has to actually pull on the string to reduce the radius, the professor is putting in energy into the system. In this system energy is not conserved, but angular momentum is approximately conserved if the string stays rotating around the center and the speeds are low enough that you can ignore air resistance and friction.

>>14749011
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals
QRD?

>>14751588
of course water is dry. the state of being wet is having absorbed or been exposed to enough water for it to collect and drip off. Ice can be wet, water cannot

>>14752896
>In something like a tetherball wrapping around pole, kinetic energy is conserved and angular momentum is not.
I wanted to contradict that but I worked it out and it turns out to be true. When a string wraps around a pole, the center of rotation is not in the center of the pole but at the point where the string is tangent to the pole and since the force on the weight comes only form the tension of the string the force is always perpendicular to the velocity of the weight, meaning that the energy is always constant here.
I'd like to add that while it is true that the angular momentum of the rotating weight isn't conserved, that is because it is exchanging angular momentum with the environment the pole is fixed to.

>>14749011
>http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf
wtf

>>14752977
>that is because it is exchanging angular momentum with the environment the pole is fixed to.
So YoU aGrEe ThAt AlL oF mOdErN pHySiCs Is WrOnG
I'm trans by the way, please don't call be John anymore.

>>14752993
What's your new name now? Johanna?

>>14753011
>>14753011
Disgusting character assassination. You are undermining a historically important discovery you ignorant fuck. FUCK YOU.

>>14753011
Jane! Calling me Johanna is character assassination you pile of shit. You are just like a flat earther that doesn't bother to read the name field.

>>14753015
Ngl, I completely missed that it was different.

>>14749237
Extremely outdated

Guys, be nice. He has a serious mental condition. Bullying him only makes it worse.

>>14753162
Fuck yoj and your ad hominem you piece of shit.

>>14752993
I don’t give a shit about your mental problems or sexual desires. Fuck you. The face that you are a tranny does not justify your shitty behavior and ignorance of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14752977
No. The angular momentum is not conserved because nature does not conserve angular momentum, retard.

>>14752896
I am right that angular momentum is not conserved. My physics book ignores friction because it has been considered negligible by physicists for centuries, retard.

>>14752862
It is a game changer. That is why it is so fuckjng important, retard.

I am not a planetary scientist.

I have proven my claim with a ball on a string demonstration.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof back onto me.

Face the fact that COAM is false and help me get the message through so we can change the game.

>>14752812
I am standing up for the truth against character assassination because people are afraid of the truth.

The fact that you are afraid of the truth doesn’t make me a bad person. Retard.

>>14752750
That is an imposter which is why he cannot defend.

What the fuck is wrong with you psychos.

>>14752693
You know that desperately trying to fabricate a mistake where none exists is shitty behavior retard.

>>14752655
Tradition imagines that angular momentum is conserved which contradicts nature.

>>14753278
Please stop impersonating me.

>>14753295
But it's not "character assassination" when you knowingly and falsely accuse people of fraud and deceit. Right.

>>14753278
>The face that you are a tranny does not justify your shitty behavior
it absolutely does you fucking chud

>>14753304
low iq post

>>14753309
How does the fact that you are a tranny justify you behaving unscientifically? Retard? Are you saying that you can neglect evidence because you had your dick removed? Wtf.

>>14753306
I have not falsely accused you of lying. You are lying because you are afraid to face the fact that angular momentum is not conserved. Retard.

>>14753393
Stop with the problematic behavior, you fucking piece of shit.

>>14753398
There you go, knowingly making false accusations of being a liar again.

>>14753305
I don’t impersonate faggots. Especially not dickless ones, retard

>>14753404
But in your book you fantasize about being a woman. What's that about?

>>14753408
There's nothing gay about autogynephilia. Grow up and accept that 12000 falsifies COAM, retard.

>>14753408
No I do not. Retard.
You are imagining things.

>>14753423
do you have the book at home? I can tell you the page

>>14753403
There you go again neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and personally insulting me in evasion, retard

>>14753427
go and take your hormons or something.

Someone should train a chatbot AI to mimic Mandlbaur posts. It would work quite well considering that he himself barely passes the Turing test.

>>14753401
Having your dick removed because you are delusional about sexuality in general is the problematic behavior, retard.

If you like men who like men, then removing your dick contradicts your own desires, retard

>>14753433
...just ugh, yikes. Do better, chud

>>14753438
Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM, retard. Stop telling us your psychotic issues about your sexuality in evasion of the fact that COAM is false.

>>14753474
Just why do you hate trans people do much? What did they ever do to you? Are you maybe an egg too scared to admit she's trans?

>>14753431
Fuck you and your adhominem faggot retard.
Are you afraid of the truth?

>>14753478
>Are you afraid of the truth?
Are you afraid of transitioning? Of coming out?

>>14753428
Fuck you and your ad hominem you piece of stinking loser shit retard.

>>14753481
Which meds have you been on? Genuinely curious.

>>14753426
You can desperately try to claim that my referenced equations are wrong because of something else somewhere else in my book as much as you like retard. It will always be a retarded evasion of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

Stop weaseling asshole.

>>14753487
post it already

>>14749011
Welp, wasted an entire day that I could have spent doing something worthwhile going through the ball/string problem via Lagrangian mechanics.

tl;dr - yes, for the specific problem of a point mass wrapping round an immovable rod, angular momentum is 'lost' and angular kinetic energy is conserved. the caveat, of course is that (as >>14752977 points out), by imposing the condition that the rod be immovable, you are essentially just giving it infinite inertia. If you do the same process, but allow the ball and rod to move about some center of mass as the ball wraps around it, no surprise - their total angular momentum is conserved.

This is the kind of conspiracyposting I hate the most - the kind that takes advantage of a technicality or a misleading example and then runs buck wild with it, claiming they've "blown the lid off the whole _____ coverup" or whatever while ignoring the 438 asterisks attached to it.

Also, this problem's a fucking whore to work out analytically - I should give it to my Mechanics students this semester just to be a massive piece of shit.

>>14753502
You are wasting your own time making excuses in evasion of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Retard.

>>14753541
why not read the entire post, you disingenuous fuck.

>>14753489
How many times must I post it before you begin to address it retard?
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14753544
Someone addressed it just 3 posts above, wtf?

>>14753542
I have no reason to address an argument that is shown to be fallacious and evasive, you unscientific moron.
Why not face the fact that you have failed to falsify my maths and have to accept my conclusion?

>>14753547
Again, how is it fallacious?

>>14753545
Nope. Imaginary evidence does not count. Addressing my paper, since no one can falsify my maths, means accepting the conclusion. Retard.

>>14753550
You're beyond help. The answer is right there and you just ignore it. Pathetic.

>>14753548
Which equation number does it contest?
If it does not contest any equation then it is very obviously fallacious because my paper is a mathematical physics paper you unscientific retard.

>>14753554
The answer is that since my maths is perfect, you have to accept the conclusion instead of making up imaginary excuses, retard.

>>14753558
Disgusting egomaniac.

>>14753559
>falling for the bait this hard
he is only pretending to be retarded

>>14753572
and he's been doing so for the past 10 years since this old sick fuck apparently gets a kick out of that

>>14753559
Nothing egotistical about stating a fact regard. Stop the as hominem you piece of shit.

>>14753574
Fuck your and your evasive creepy ad hominem you piece of shit.

>>14753575
Apologize.

>>14753577
If he wanted to be creepy he'd tell you about the wall of mandlbaur profile pics he masturbates to, describing - in detail - the soft red glow of the mood lighting, glistening off of globs of creamy jism as they streak down the laminated photos

>>14753579
Fuck off faggot creep

>>14753162
>Guys, be nice. He has a serious mental condition. Bullying him only makes it worse.
sure, but so what?

>>14753502
>I should give it to my Mechanics students this semester just to be a massive piece of shit.
why do you hate the next generation so much?

>>14753816
Fuck off you creepy faggots.

>>14753824
Yes, terrorize your students by asking them to confirm something which is impossible to confirm. Instead of asking then to confirm COAE and being successful.

I hate that I can only come to 4chan, or anything on the internet, to fucking laugh. There are no communities of people teaching each other things that are taught in schools: only shitty hearsay in the comments of fucking pontificates.

>>14753862
Wtf???
Do you have a point here retard?

COAM is false face it like a grown up and stop whining like a bitch.

>>14753502
It's an easy problem. The string is always perpendicular to the velocity so no work is done so you know that the kinetic energy is conserved. You can also easily find the torque and verify that it is equal to the change in angular momentum

>>14753909
You, sir are a deluded engineer.
L = r x p, so, the p remains constant as you agree. If r changes then it is mathematically impossible for angular momentum to be conserved.

>>14753923
>L = r x p, so, the p remains constant as you agree. If r changes then it is mathematically impossible for angular momentum to be conserved.
Yes I agree with you 100%. That was my point. You aren't saying anything new.

>>14753925
Physics does not agree with you though, so it is new and you are talking out of your ass.
Physics is fundamentally wrong.
Angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14753941
You have no clue about what the physics is. Which would you prefer? Being right, but not saying anything new? Or just being wrong?

>>14753944
Please stop the ad hominem and face the fact that the scientific method is to reject the theory which makes wrong predictions and 12000 rpm is a wrong prediction.

>>14753941
> Physics is fundamentally wrong.
No it isn't.
> Angular momentum is not conserved.
In a scenario where angular momentum is not conserved then angular momentum is not conserved. What a brilliant observation but you are too stupid to realise that is what you're saying.

>>14754043
Yes, it is. Angular momentum is not conserved and physics thinks it is. That is fundamentally flawed by definition.

>>14754056
physics theories need experimental evidence. go and prove it then with your ball and string. we'll all be right here waiting.

>>14754043
If you are trying to argue that the historical ball on a string demonstration is not an example which conserves angular momentum then you are out of your ducking mind insane. Retard. Now fuck off and stop wasting my time with bullshit.

>>14754063
I have measured your best evidence retard. Your mind is so closed that you neglect the evidence like a flat earther.
See example 1 : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

>>14753303
But you know that the equation contains a cross product or not?

>>14753923
The equation contains a cross product between r and p so L can remain constant even with changing r. This is exactly what happens in linear motion where a moving mass is not on a string but just freely moving in a straight line in reference to some stationary point being its "center of rotation".

>>14754095
Irrelevant. 12000!rpm is wrong so COAM is false. Very simple and clear and obvious.

>>14754104
It does matter since if you can't even read the equation, nobody can trust any of your other conclusions.

>>14754103
Nonsense. The reason that physics predicts 12000 rpm is because physics claims that the momentum increases when you reduce the radius retard. It is impossible to keep p the same magnitude and conserve angular momentum unless you are conserving the radius as well you dumb fucking retard.

>>14754105
Point out an equation number before claim there is any equation wrong, you dishonest lying piece of shit.

>>14754108
None of your equations are wrong because all you have done is put some values into grade 5 classical mechanics equations. However every single one of your conclusions is total nonsense and flat out gibberish.

You are probably the most retarded poster on all of 4ch.

this thread has run its course. everyone called everyone else a retard, multiple fake Mandlbaurs made their appearance, while the real one screams at everybody because he thinks it even remotely plausible that the entire physics is wrong. none of this will change any more. I think we are done here.

>>14754158
We are only done because nobody can defeat my paper. You would prefer not to face the obvious fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM and you support the people who are so desperate to censor me that they impersonate me. Somehow people impersonating me makes me the unreasonable one.

>>14754154
The prediction of COAM for the example is 12000 rpm. That is obviously wrong. A “law” which makes wrong predictions is a bad theory and must be rejected. Very simple.

>>14754184
> The prediction of COAM for the example is 12000 rpm
You're absolutely correct but only because you used the wrong relationship for angular momentum. In your example it should be [math]\hat{L} = \hat{r} \times \hat{p} = I \omega = r^2m\ v/r = rmv[/math]

So it scales as r not r^2 so you would get 1200rpm

>>14754201
Incorrect and you are agreeing with me that angular energy is conserved and your calculations contradict the law of COAM.
You are deluded, retard.
COAM predicts 12000 rpm.

>>14754275
Wrong.

>>14754275
If you’re imposing the condition that the rod the ball is wrapping around is immobile, then COAM doesn’t apply to this case in the first place because you’re effectively replacing the rod’s side of the conservation interaction with an external torque from the environment.

Your argument is flawed from its initial assumption
[math]\tau_{ext} = \frac{\Delta L}{\Delta t} = 0[/math]
Does not apply.

unrelated, but i love doing crack

>>14754394
No. I impose nothing. I calculate the prediction for a ball on a string demonstration by the book and there is no wrapping, ignorant retard.

>>14754385
You can’t change mathematical principles to suit your delusion, retard.

>>14754464
unrelated, but I love doing your mom

>>14754466
>I calculate the prediction for a ball on a string demonstration by the book and there is no wrapping
At no point do you describe the actual problem, and you're using a version of the book that has been out of print for like 30 years and has (as far as I can find) no scans of it so simply referencing page numbers is unhelpful.

There are like a hundred different toy problems and demos in physics that could be described as "a ball on a string" ranging from a Hoberman ball on a string being pulled together, to a tetherball demo where a ball is thrown and wraps around a pole, to a ball on a string connecting to a hanging mass under a hole, and so on. Since you don't ever tell us which of these hundred scenarios you're describing, it makes it difficult to evaluate your work.

So, enlighten us. Describe the scenario in detail. Or hell, just take a picture of your copy of the book and post it.

>>14754513
>points out
He's talking about the version where the weight on a string rotates around a tube held in hand and you can control the length of the string by either pulling on it from below or hanging a weight on it.
He's still assuming no external torque though and claims that friction is negligible or something so it's still wrong.

>>14754513
For a professional rendition of the centuries old classic classroom demonstration that was most likely invented by Newton himself, please see example 4 : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

>>14749009
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14754619
Stop harassing me in circles with appeal to tradition you asshole. 12000 rpm falsifies COAM face that or fuck off.

>>14750524
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14750596
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14750644
We have another George Trepal here!

http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

>>14750942
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14751503
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14754651
Please stop trolling, Anon?

>>14751643
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14752359
Please post the subchapter from your physic textbook on angular momentum.
It is just a few pages and you have already posted one.
This is a perfectly reasonable request so that we can all be on the same page, figuratively and literally.

I just found out that John has spammed quite a lot on Quora as well https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-conservation-of-angular-momentum-be-repeatably-confirmed-in-laboratory-conditions-using-the-most-basic-original-Newtonian-example-being-the-ball-on-a-string-demonstration-of-conservation-of-angular-momentum

>>14753304
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

John apparently paid some company a ton of money to check his papers for (grammatical) mistakes, thinking this is what may be what prevents his papers from being accepted.

>>14754614
Newton did not invent that demonstration. Newton very derived a geometric proof of the conservation of angular momentum in systems with a central force but that's it.
Angular momentum and conservation of angular momentum in the form we know today came much later, many decades after Newton.
If you're gonna lie at least do it convincingly.

>>14753487
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
How about the paragraph directly above your equations, your written "BS"?
Try paying a little attention to what you post.

>>14754107
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14754108
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14754626
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14754654
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14754702
12000 rpm falsifies COAM.

>>14754780
Mandlbaur chill bruv. Ay ya needa get yaself sum pussy n forget dis soience shiet

Damn Mandlbaur got btfo'd hard today

>>14754780
So you are just gonna ignore anything directed to you? You lied about Newton inventing the demonstration (which is actually quite modern, invented solely as a demonstration because it's not a precise enough experiment to use as any sort of scientific evidence) and you are just gonna ignore being called out?

>>14754581
thank you
>>14754614
thank you - knowing precisely what the problem is helps in breaking it down.

[math]L = r \times p = m\;r \times \dot{r}[/math]
[math]r = \left(R\;\cos{\phi} \;,\; R\;\sin{\phi} \right)[/math]
[math]\dot{r} = \left(\dot{R} \cos{\phi} - R\;\dot{\phi} \sin{\phi} \;,\; \dot{R} \sin{\phi} + R\;\dot{\phi} \cos{\phi} \right)[/math]
[math]L = L_z = m\;R^2\;\dot{\phi}[/math]
[math]\frac{{d}L}{{dt}}=2\;m\;R\;\dot{R}\;\dot{\phi}\;+\;m\;R^2\;\ddot{\phi}[/math]

Now, all of these properties must be non-zero for the case described (except for the trivial case where [math]R_i = R_f = 0[/math]), which means the only case of this problem where angular momentum would even be implied to be conserved from this definition would have to satisfy:
[math]2\;m\;R\;\dot{R}\;\dot{\phi}\;+\;m\;R^2\;\ddot{\phi} = 0[/math]
Or, simplified:
[math]\ddot{\phi} = -2\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\;\dot{\phi}[/math]

Interestingly, if you work this out via Lagrangian mechanics, your differential equations are:
[math]\ddot{R}=R\;\dot{\phi}^2[/math]
[math]\ddot{\phi} = -2\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\;\dot{\phi}[/math]

The only motion that satisfies these equations without imposing any constraint on the system is (unsurprisingly) a free particle moving away from some point at constant linear velocity. Adding any constraint or imposing any radial acceleration automatically breaks the symmetry in Lagrange's equations and yields a scenario where angular momentum is, inherently, not conserved.

This problem doesn't falsify angular momentum, it's just a shit problem because it's applying COAM to a scenario where COAM doesn't apply. What you have found is interesting, but is only an argument for instructors to stop using this problem as practice for solving COAM problems. Nothing more.

>>14754916
>>14755078
It's all wasted effort since you can't had a rational argument with someone so irrational. He'll never admit he's wrong.

>>14755124
Fuck you 4chan, stop fucking my equations

R'' = R ϕ'^2
ϕ'' = -2 R' ϕ' / R

>>14755124
>What you have found is interesting, but is only an argument for instructors to stop using this problem as practice for solving COAM problems.
Nope, the problem is perfectly valid when the student is told of the limitations. Hell, even in highschool we were told that these initial basic equations didn't perfectly mirror our demonstrations. Students we were taught to think why and often times told that the solution to the demonstration was either later in the course or available in higher level classes.
That much is present in the very textbook he used for his paper, FFS.

>>14755078
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
The setup he uses, that would have made high-school physics so much more engaging.
https://www.pasco.com/

>>14755151
>Nope, the problem is perfectly valid when the student is told of the limitations.
The limitation is that it COAM doesn't apply, so telling students to apply COAM to solve the problem (even just for practice with learning how to apply Li = Lf for problem-solving) is disingenuous to say the least. It's like applying conservation of energy to a perfectly inelastic linear collision, or - even more analogously - or using a hammer to put in a screw. The tool you're using isn't a bad tool and it's perfectly valid to apply it to appropriate situations, but you're using it to try and accomplish a task that it's not meant for.

When I make up problems for students to work out for my classes I go out of my way to pick examples where the action by external actors is negligible (ex. a gymnast or ice skater changing their mass distribution during a spin or flip, children redistributing themselves on a merry-go-round, a pair of tethered astronauts pulling themselves towards one another, etc.). These cases have their own real-world limitations, of course, but in ideal, toy-model conditions we can assume COAM applies. The issue with the ball-on-a-string example is that the constraints and forces you're imposing, even in an idealized model (frictionless, dragless, point masses, etc.) make angular momentum inherently time-dependent.

>>14755258
You are just as fucking dumb as John, you can't read the words on the page.
Fuck, all the examples you list also apply to the ball on a string.

>>14755315
take your meds

>>14755315
>Fuck, all the examples you list also apply to the ball on a string.
The issue with ball on a string is that even in the idealized case, you can't make it a non-isolated system because of the external force. The examples I listed have idealized cases where the system can be treated as isolated because all of the forces and redistributions of matter are internal (admittedly, most of these idealized cases are pretty much just sticking shit in deep space, which isn't great for practical analogies, but still).

>>14755364
That's not true though. I just worked out the ball on string example using work done on the string and the angular momentum of the ball does not change.
How did you work out that the angular momentum is not conserved?

My work for reference:
[math]r_1[/math] - initial radius
[math]r_2[/math] - final radius
[math]v_1[/math] - initial velocity
[math]v_2[/math] - final radius

[math]E = \frac{mv^2}{2}[/math]
[math]v = \sqrt{\frac{2E}{m}}[/math]
[math]T = \frac{mv^2}{r} = \frac{2E}{r}[/math] <- string tension

[math]\frac{dE}{dr} = -T = -\frac{2E}{r}[/math]
[math]E(r) = \frac{c_1}{r^2}[/math]
[math]E(r_1) = \frac{c_1}{r_1^2} = \frac{mv_1^2}{2}[/math]
[math]c_1 = \frac{mv_1^2r_1^2}{2} [/math]

[math]E(r) = \frac{r_1^2}{r^2}\frac{mv_1^2}{2}[/math]
[math]E(r_2) = \frac{r_1^2}{r_2^2}\frac{mv_1^2}{2}[/math]
[math]v_2 = \sqrt{\frac{2E(r_2)}{m}} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{m}\frac{r_1^2}{r_2^2}\frac{mv_1^2}{2}} = \sqrt{\frac{r_1^2}{r_2^2}v_1^2} = \frac{r_1}{r_2}v_1[/math]

[math]L_1 = mr_1v_1[/math]
[math]L_2 = mr_2v_2 = mr_2\frac{r_1}{r_2}v_1 = mr_1v_1[/math]
[math]L_1 = L_2[/math]

>>14755523
Typo, meant to say [math]v_2[/math] - final velocity instead of radius

>>14755330
Damn, the John supportsnarencoming out in force now.

>>14755523
>[math]T = \frac{m v^2}{r}=\frac{2 E}{r}[/math]
Either v is tangential velocity, in which case the right side is incorrect (since kinetic energy will depend on tangential and radial velocity) or v is total velocity, in which case the middle is incorrect.

>>14755609
I hear what you are saying and my derivation might not be correct but I don't believe the conclusion is wrong here. I did some simulations and regardless of the string length (modelling the string as a spring) I get identical angular momentum in each case (within a margin of error of 0.002%).
In fact, in the idealized case it's impossible for the angular momentum of the weight to change because the central rod is incapable of experiencing any torque since the force of tension is always applied to the center of it. Linear momentum is of course not conserved but this can be fixed by having 2 rotating weights opposite of each other (making the fixed central rod irrelevant which turns this case analogous to a spinning ice skater or tethered astronauts) but I cannot see why angular momentum wouldn't be conserved here.
I'd imagine if I were to model a spiral motion (instead of r magically changing value) I'd get the correct result and the same conclusion.

>>14755667
The Lagrangian method gets you smooth spiral motion, not unlike a Hohmann transfer, but because the force acting on the ball is external to the system there's a break in symmetry that you don't get with something like a gravitational attraction or even simply two tethered bodies allowed to freely move as they wind around each other.

>>14755683
Okay but that's just for the linear momentum. As I mentioned, the string is incapable of transferring angular momentum.
The energy is obviously not being conserved because there's work done on the string with its tension opposing its pulling motion so it's not like John is correct in any way about the ball on string example.

>>14751588
>>14753502
Can you disprove it mathematically?

>>14753909
>>14755872
For clarification - >>14753502 was working out the problem of a ball on a tether wrapping around a pole, not the ball on a string pulled through a hole.

L is conserved for ball on a string, but not for tetherball wrapping around a rod - your point of contact around the pole changes which means tension is not completely parallel to the center of the pole. Kinetic energy in your Lagrangian is implicitly dependent on angle because your string length is decreasing like [math]L - R \phi[/math], which makes partial with respect to [math]\phi[/math] non-zero.

>>14755940
L is never conserved and the fact that you cannot show an order of magnitude difference between a tether ball and a ball on a string demonstration confirms my claim.
They behave pretty much exactly the same and result in pretty much the exact same final result. Retard.
You are simply grasping at imaginary straws and totally negligent of the reality.

>>14755700
Exactly John is wrong and it does in fact do 12000 rpm as physics genuinely predicts, right.
Dunbass retard.

>>14755151
We are not talking about a small discrepancy that you can say “friction” and excuse.
We are discuss an order of magnitude discrepancy which can only be explained by accepting that the “law” is wrong.
You grasp at straws retard.

>>14755129
You are the ones having difficulty admitting that 12000 rpm is wrong and falsifies COAM.

>>14755124
Claiming that COAM “does not apply” to the ball on a string demonstration of COAM is literally insane denial.

>>14755078
12000 rpm literally falsifies COAM and whether Newton invented the ball on a string or not. You lying about Newton not inventing it and having no evidence to support you. Is simply neglecting the evidence that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14754916
Only if you are totally fucking delusional, retard.

>>14754689
Presenting a scientific discovery is not spam. Retard. Go fuck yourself.

>>14754685
Absolutely and undeniably denial to ask me to post my textbook and ignore my paper which is based on very basic physics which you are not even contesting. You are simply weaseling. Go fuck yourself retarded ignoramus.

>>14756080
>L is never conserved
Derive the equations of planetary motion without conservation of momentum

>They behave pretty much exactly the same and result in pretty much the exact same final result.
They're not the same - you yourself have already chided people in this very thread for mistaking the tetherball problem for the ball on string problem and were very *very* insistent on reminding us that they are not the same.

They are not equivocal and do not approximate each other - if you take the limit where the pole in the tetherball problem becomes smaller, T becomes closer and closer to being parallel with r and the change in angular momentum becomes smaller and smaller, however dr/dt also becomes smaller and smaller and eventually goes to zero in the limit of the pole being of infinitessimal thinness, at which point the radius and angular velocity of the ball simply remain constant at their initial conditions. Wrapping is not the same as pulling. Almost parallel is not the same as parallel.

>>14756251
Show us 12000 rpm before you imagine it is realistic.
Stop shifting the burden of proof.

>>14756251
I never said they are the same, retard. I said the results are similar. Is that difficult to understand?

>>14749237
> Cody - extremely based slightly retarded
> Wildberger - I am thinking of making it into torus

>>14756273
You are fuckjng retarded because you evade the subject of the post like a fuckjgn flat earther. Fuck off and face facts.
Veritaphobic fuck.

>>14756280

Who I am to judge? I know nothing about physics and engineering.

>>14756285
You are too stupid to decide for yourself if a ball on a string spins as fast as a Ferrari engine?
FUCK YOU YOU VERITAPHOBIC LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14756270
would 11999 rpm be realistic? where do you draw the line and why?

>>14756294
All laws are approximations, strictly speaking they are not laws.

Does it solve the dispute?

I have never seen Ferrari ball but then again I have never seen a black hole or else.

>>14756322
I personally draw the line at 10% discrepancy because that could reasonably be explained by frictional differences between theory and reality. The difference being discussed is more than 90% discrepancy which is a contradiction.

What discrepancy do you need to see before you face the truth you fucking weaseling retard?

>>14756330
DO YOU THINK THAT 12000 rpm IS A REASONABLE APPROXIMATION YOU EVASIVE FUCKING RETARD.

FUCK OFF AND STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH STUPID FUCK GRASPING AT STRAWS EXCUSES.

FUCK YOU.

>>14756337
I don't think we can tell without making a thorough investigation into the effects of friction. 10% is just an arbitrary number pulled out of thin air, it has no significance.

>>14756344
So you think that you can just say friction and neglect a 90% discrepancy?

Reductio ad absurdum is not a proof anymore and was only valid when Aristotle was around.

You are just evading. That is all. You are literally a veritaphobe.

You are the same ignorant fuck who imagines that an independent experiment confirming perfectly that angular energy is conserved can also just be neglected as a mistake.

Fuck off you stubborn ignorant fuck

>>14756341

why are you interested what I am thinking?

>>14756358
I am not interested in what you are thinking because you are literally delusional. You think it’s excusable for physics to predict 12000 rpm for a hand held demonstration that has never been shown to have any tendency toward any increase in energy nor require huge amounts of force.

You neglect the evidence like a flat earther and imagine that I have an issue facing facts.

>>14756354
>So you think that you can just say friction and neglect a 90% discrepancy?
John, you are too stupid to correctly guess what I am implying. Please don't even try.

>>14756093
Newton didn't even use the term angular momentum. At that time they still treated it as areal velocity. The modern notion of angular momentum took a couple more decades to form.

>>14756082
I'd rather the other anon replied to me. I don't particularly care about your answers, John, so stop replying to me.

this is devolving into a 'pick your own John' adventure.

>>14756387
Fuck you retard. 12000 rpm falsified COAM and fuck your history lesson moron. Evasive piece of shit.

>>14756375
I don’t have to guess because you are common in your behavior you evasive moron. Fuck your and your ad hominem.

>>14756435
It matters because it makes you a liar

>>14756449
No, it makes me telling the truth and you a fucking liar you piece of stinking shit.

>>14756480
You lied about Newton so obviously you are a liar.

>>14756548
I did not lie about Newton. You are lying about Newton. You try to claim that since we use different terms now, 300 years later, that Newton did not know anything about conservation of angular momentum when it is well accepted that COAM was developed by Newton.
You are a lying piece of stinking shit.

>>14756552
If you knew how to read you'd know I did not say that. The law of equal areas precedes Newton and he did not formulate it. Conservation of momentum itself is more complex than the law of equal areas so they aren't equivalent and as such, conservation of angular momentum in the modern form came later on.
Newton did not invent conservation of angular momentum nor the ball on a string demonstration. I don't know where you got it from but that's categorically wrong.

>>14756558
https://qsstudy.com/conservation-angular-momentum/
“Newton’s first law of angular motion”.

>>14756558
It is very obvious that the classic demonstration of one of newtons laws is designed by the person who’s name is attached to the law you fuckjgn evasive retard.

>>14756566
>https://qsstudy.com/conservation-angular-momentum/
Except he didn't formulate laws of angular motion. They are angular analogs to his laws of motion which is why they are called as such.

>>14756566
Things are named after famous people without their direct input all the time.
Just like Rutherfordium was not discovered by Ernest Rutherford and Americium was not discovered by Amerigo Vespucci.

>>14756354
>So you think that you can just say friction and neglect a 90% discrepancy?
what 90% discrepancy? you have never seen a 90% discrepancy. you have not performed any experiment. your complete argument for 'all of physics is wrong' is that you cannot believe a particular result.

>>14756590
>But big number! Can't be right!
I find it cute how JM thinks he isn't exactly like flat earth retards.

>>14756605
I am facing the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM. You are neglecting the evidence. Neglecting the evidence is the behavior of a flat earther.

>>14756590
12000 rpm is more than 90% discrepancy from reality and you have never seen experiment of a variable radii system which confirms COAM. So you hold double standards. If the evidence suits your beliefs then it can be crappy shit like “it spins faster” but an evaluation of the prediction being 12000 rpm which is a step above existing evidence, and it is all of a sudden not good enough for you simply because you believe differently.

Are you religious?

>>14756579
The law of conservation of angular momentum was discovered by Newton and you making up lies about it doesn’t alter the fact that newtons law of COAM is wrong.

>>14756573
Yes he did and he was the one who convinced people it was conserved using the ball on a string demonstration.

The fact is that 12000 rpm objectively falsies COAM. Stop evading the fact with irrelevant nonsense please ?

>>14756627
all of physics would have to be wrong first, before you could be right. celestial mechanics in its entirety, for one. directions in space would need to be non-equivalent. don't you think we'd have noticed by now?

>>14756632
>he was the one who convinced people it was conserved using the ball on a string demonstration
so you still imagine physics' acceptance of COAM is based on a primitive classroom experiment?

>>14756638
We have noticed. Google orbital prediction error for thousands of physics papers confirming our incompetent orbital mechanics.
Go and lookup “ the angular momentum problem”.
Lookup the “flyby anomaly” which shows that anything which comes close enough to accurately measure behaves differently to what is expected.
Lookup Omumau where scientists literally are more open to aliens than consideration that our theory is wrong.
We have noticed.
We just make excuses for it and neglect the evidence just like you make excuses and neglect 12000 rpm.

>>14756619
You are neglecting the physical proof that angular momentum is conserved, flat earth retard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
This sphere completely contradicts your theory of "conservation of angular energy", which claims that the ball should only speed up to 50RPM, yet the ball is clearly spinning in excess of 120RPM as predicted by COAM.

>>14756641
It makes no difference what the acceptance is based on. The “law” is falsified by the fact that a ball on a string disobeys it.

>>14756646
Since there is no measurement made in the video, you are fantasizing.

Please see real measurements all of which confirm COAE and falsify COAM here and stop cherry picking and fantasizing.

http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

>>14756657
The measurements can be made by measuring the video, retard.

>>14756660
Nope. They cannot. The device is too Compion to make any reasonable measurements from the video. You bullshit.

Accept the measurements I present and stop fantasizing.

>>14756664
False. I have functioning eyes since I'm not a senile old man like (you).

>>14756666
Well your eyes clearly have issues if you think a ball on a string does 12000 rpm, retard

>>14756669
Your eyes clearly have issues if you can't see that angular momentum is conserved in actually relevant experiments like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ

>>14756644
>Lookup Omumau where scientists literally are more open to aliens than consideration that our theory is wrong.
literally making shit up now. Pathetic

>>14756558
I know that you are discussing this irrelevant shit because you are evading my proof.

>>14756693
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomer-avi-loeb-says-aliens-have-visited-and-hes-not-kidding1/?amp=true

>>14756648
>>14756657
>>14756669
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14756098
I just want to be able to communicate with you from common ground.
That is objectively reasonable.
Why don't you want to be share common knowledge with others?

>>14756904
Well then communicate and stop
Evading you closed minded retard. Address my paper.

>>14756898
Fuck off and stop trolling me with this mindless defeated unscientific shit.

>>14756972
I would love to address your paper but I don Todd's have access to your reference material.
Kindly provide pictures of the pages you reference.

>>14756979
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14756628
He didn't. Kepler was faster. And it wasn't exactly the angular momentum we know today.

>>14756632
>using the ball on a string demonstration
Newton didn't use any sort of experiment like that. Newton and Kepler were both describing observed orbits of stellar objects and formulated the law of equal areas. Kepler did it before Newton though.

>>14757074
It makes no difference stop evading the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM you mindless prejudiced fucking retarded troll. FUCK OFF

>>14757068
It makes no difference to the fact that angular momentum conservation is falsified now stop trolling you fuckjng annoying retard.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM or FUCK OFF.

>>14757089
I mean, it is you who for some reason keeps lying about Newton. Since it's irrelevant to you, why did you fabricate this lie in the first place? It's not like it helps your agenda in any way.

>>14757066
Fuck you you mindless defeated circular fuckjng troll.

>>14757099
>>14757089
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14757105
If every professionally done experiment confirms the theory but yours, maybe the problem isn't the theory but your experiment?

>>14757105
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14757100
12000 rpm object falsified coma and it is fuckjng irrelevant who invented the ball on a string demonstration.

Now stop the ad hominem and address the fact that COAM is false you stinking piece of circular shit. FUCK OFF

>>14756648
>The “law” is falsified by the fact that a ball on a string disobeys it.
once again, YOU DON'T KNOW THIS. you just believe it.
>>14756644
>orbital prediction error
any of them over the 10% limit you have set yourself? any of them over 1%? any article there you can even understand?

>>14757117
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14757116
FUCK OFF and stop trolling you stinking piece of shit. What the fuck is wrong with you.

>>14757117
You kept insisting that Newton invented the demonstration. And then when called out you kept at it. So it clearly matters to you.

>>14757120
I know this for a fact because I experimented. You know fuck all because you have never seen COAM confirmed you delusional retard.

Open your mind to the evidence ffs

>>14757123
It's a public board and a public thread. It doesn't belong to you, so he's allowed to post whatever he wants.

>>14757123
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
Legitimate link to a video demonstration, with measurement.
A link to one of your posts disproving your paper.
Both are on point, not trolling.

>>14757124
Nope. I said that it was probably invented by Newton. Now stop evading and face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM you fucking Veritaphobic retard. What the fuck is wrong with you.

>>14757128
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
Legitimate link to a video demonstration, with measurement.
A link to one of your posts disproving your paper.
Both are on point, not trolling.

>>14757129
Trolling is against the rules for starters retard. It is also stinking disgusting behavior. So fuck you.

>>14757128
I've seen COAM deduced from more elementary facts. now maths is also wrong?
... oh, I forgot, cross product..
>I know this for a fact because I experimented.
lying is not nice.

>>14757131
Nope. A measurement which does not show a ball on a string demonstration doing 12000 rpm does not address my paper retard.

This is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy which has been pointed out fallacious on many occasions and is brought up
In circles like fuckign clown with one foot nailed to the floor.

NOW FUCK OFF YOU STINKING PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14757141
Experiment falsified maths.
12000 rpm not happening falsifies COAM no matter how many derivations there are for you to appeal to tradition logical fallacy with.

Stop presenting evasive fallacious arguments and face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM.

Behave like a grown up.

>>14757143
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
Legitimate link to a video demonstration, with measurement.
A link to one of your posts disproving your paper.
Both are on point, not trolling.
I'm no more trolling than you are with every post repeating the same falsehood and/or insults.

>>14757143
Doesn't really matter if it addresses your paper or not. If other experiments confirm the principle to a high degree of accuracy then the principle isn't wrong and the issue is either with your experiment or your understanding of the principle.

>>14757152
It is clear that the only information he took from the textbook wre the formula and the explanation of the characters in the formulas, absolutely nothing else.

>>14757152
There is no experiment confirming it to a “high degree of accuracy” even the one you present is questionable. Retard.

Every measurement that is unbiased confirms my claim perfectly.

How about the LabRat’s confirmation. Blind independent confirmation is the highest form of scientific evidence.

How can you just neglect it and point to some unconvincing shit that can barely be called science.

You are literally cherry picking which is terribly unscientific.

>>14757173
I took the example and the equations to predict it from the example of the classic demonstration and the equations and example have not changed in centuries, retard.

>>14757183
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14757189
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14757183
You're the one cherry picking, flat earth retard. You're clinging to literally just one experiment that isn't even relevant to COAM because it isn't a closed system, like the retarded monkey you are.

>>14757148
>experiment falsifies maths
any hint on how did you measure 1200 rpm in that famous experiment of yours?
>Behave like a grown up.
I wonder what would it look like if this discussion took place face-to-face. do you often assault people who look like quietly believing in COAM?

>>14757151
There is nothing “legitimate” about an appeal to tradition logical fallacy you fuck.
It is an hour long video and as far as I can tell it has fuck all measurements assshole. Where is your measurement timestamp?

>>14757200
You should have seen the recorded online debates he had with people on youtube. He's extremely aggressive and abusive towards others. If he's married he probably beats his wife as well.

>>14757207
So, you admit to ignoring the evidence.
That is illogical and unscientific.
Act like an adult.

>>14757189
You took the equations that you don't understand and applied them where they don't apply.

>>14757207
How is an actual demonstration, with measurements an appeal to tradition?

>>14757200
Face to face I would say the same things to you. Behave like a grown up instead of a fuckjgn five year old that doesn’t want to hear that Father Christmas does not exist and closes her eyes tight and blocks her ears and mumbles insults.

STOP THE AD HOMINEM YOU STINKING PIECE OF SHIT.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM or show us a ball on a string doing 12000!rpm and stop being so fuckign ignorant and dense.

>>14757211
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU STINKING PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14757219
I took the equations for the example and you cannot provide any other answer than 12000 rpm for the example.
Why do you adopt this lying cheating shitty behavior. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>14757141
Worse, half of physics is wrong because of this discovery
>>14751349

>>14757230
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
Try reading the text around the equations.

>>14757207
At 10 minute mark he starts performing measurements and later on he does calculations. It's a way more accurate experiment than your ball on a string could ever be.

>>14757230
You were told numerous times that the equation only applies to closed systems. That's right in the definition of conservation of angular momentum. How can you claim to have disproven it if you ignored one of its core principles?

>>14757222
so, how did you measure the actual rotation rate, be it 1200 or 12000 rpm? what tools did you use? some portable radar you macgyvered from an used microwave oven? some sort of stroboscope?

>>14757245
Yes, people have been lying about the application of the equations but since my equations are referenced, this is just a plain lie. Please address my paper and stop evaidng it by making up lies?

>>14757267
I have never measured a ball on a string. I discovered this through experimental prototypes. I have proved it theoretically using the existing classic example of a ball on a string demonstration.
Is that understood now?

>>14757269
>my equations are referenced, this is just a plain lie.
Why are you lying? Your entire paper is about a ball on a string which is not a closed system.

>>14757232
oooh, I expect it to be way more than just half. isotropy is done for, next victim: causality.