/sci/ - Science & Math

Perfectly reasonable email. I wouldn’t call it an unfair expectation, but it is a naive and selfish expectation to expect someone to read it

>>14764354
He sounds like a raging midwit overcompensating for his inferiority complex.

>>14764358

The time he used to write this email could have been used to have basic understandings of the so called "paper".

>>14764358
>perfectly reasonable
if your basis is being totally pompous

>>14764354
There's more.

>>14764358
The students literally pay their salary. They are working for the students.

>>14764354
He sounds like a massive prick
>>14764420
Never mind he looped back into being based

OP just post the article, unless you're ashamed of it for some reason.

>>14764550
Here's the article: https://osf.io/vkb2z

>>14764423
False, but more importantly why would you assume it's their student? That would be the least likely assumption.

>>14764554
Oh, it's this schizo again. Abandon thread.

>>14764578
Not sure who's the more obnoxious schizo cunt - Rapport or Mandlbaur.

>>14764389
>The time he used to write this email could have been used to have basic understandings of the so called "paper".
Or he receives enough of manuscripts that he has this as a canned response.

>>14764354
I'm pretty sure people don't get that fucking jaded for no reason.
What I assume has happened is
>Rando asks him to read his dumb ass "paper" which is probably retarded anyway
>Prof reads it
>Spends time writing some comments
>Replies back
>Random retard doesn't even say thanks
You'd be surprised at how fucking rude and entitled people can be.

>>14764690
Also, this happening enough times to break him

>>14764586
Absolutely Mandlbaur.

>>14764354
It's just as unfair as expecting Anonymous to read an unsolicited OP

>>14764586
Dunno anything about this Rapport guy. But does he claim to be able to debunk half of physics without even knowing what a vector is?

>>14764777
No. He also has a degree in physics.

>>14764554
You've moved on harassing actual academics with this?

>>14764873
My area isn't physics so I'm not up with the particulars here. What part of the paper do you disagree with?

>>14764354
Yes. Nobody has time for a bunch of dumb redneck cranks who think they're the next Ramanujan mailing Hardy.

I mean if you've spent enough time online you learn to see that there's a whole bunch of weirdoes writing out pages and pages of their demented scribblings thinking that they're hot shit. Why even bother spending the time to read through it and offer your thoughts when they won't even have to listen to anything you got to say anyway? It's just a pointless waste of time.

>>14764354
>Or your doctor to give you a checkup on their spare time
Except they do? How fucking sheltered can someone be to assume a doctor wouldn't help a friend in need? Not even a friend, an acquaintance, or an acquaintance with someone else's problem. If you know any doctors, they are always willing to help with your shit no matter how silly, absolutely none of them would give this ass of an answer.

>>14764891
>Nobody has time
The kind of midwit who has enough time for snarky reddit exchanges usually has more than enough time.

>>14764853
I see. Then clearly Mandlbaur is worse.

>>14764777
His argument isn't even that bad desu. It's pro-aether so it will naturally trigger /sci/, but denial of aether theory is a very recent zeitgeist.

>>14764354
Being that most research is funded with taxpayer dollars, there is a certain level of obligation there. Maybe there should be a certain amount of "public service hours" that professors be required to put in each month.

>>14764911
False. Those snarky messages can be written in a matter of minutes. Properly scrutinizing a paper can take many hours, if not days. You sound like a butthurt redneck crank who bought into the "high-IQ autist" meme but who is, on the whole, utterly unremarkable academically. That doesn't mean you can't keep "digging" into the 4chan insider LARP of the week.

>>14764924
Maybe public universities should hire permanent professorial staff to engage with public science submissions.

>>14764932
That idea is good too, though I like the idea of making all professors do some hours doing this so as to keep them humble

>>14764354
lmao, cry harder, kook.

>>14764952
I would agree but I'm an academic (admittedly a teaching one) so my time on the clock would be spent meeting people's needs already. Some people need to cater to the students, some should cater to the public. But not the same ones or it'd overwork the people already doing actual work.

>>14764354
You know what sucks even more for you? Because he receives dozens of unsolicited manuscripts, his reply is likely a copypasta. There goes your last shred of importance in thinking he took the time to write that especially for you, crank.

>>14764593
See how the "wahhh, he could have used the time writing that" brainlets didn't even consider that possibility? They can front all they want on an anonymous imageboard, but simple social misses such as this out their low IQs.

>>14764927
>Those snarky messages can be written in a matter of minutes
Read that post again, midwit extaordinaire. I never denied that they can be written in a matter of minutes.

>>14764963
So far nobody has actually taken the time to read and engage with his paper. What do you hate about it, or about him?

>>14764927
I never implied that reviewing a paper takes as little time as writing a reddit reply. Yours clearly took 10 seconds and no conscious thought to come up with. Try reading my post again until you see your error.

>>14764354
Tell him: Bitch you ain't shit. You should be honored I asked a bottom feeder like you. You have a consultant fee, lmao? I guess bottom bitches have to hustle some money from upcoming researchers to survive. Stop being condescending. I hope you get syphilis.

>>14764960
Fair enough, I’m mainly looking for a good way to knock on people who think they are too important to handle questions from random members of the public. Like in OP’s letter. I do realize that someone building a perpetual motion machine is a waste of time, and they may have delusions of grandeur that make any oxygen spent on them a waste, but I still expect someone who is halfway a public servant to have a courteous response, even if it’s just a form letter, something like, “I would like to respond to each letter individually, but some topics come up so frequently that I have compiled this one page response resource that reflects a lot of thought on [perpetual motion machines ]….” And then some quotes and some references about perpetual motion machines not being possible… “sincerely yours, prof X”

>>14764991
Yeah I'm all about that personally. I think it would be good to make that sort of thing a permanent staffing position in departments, just for the sake of outreach to the public about academic questions.

The real problem as I see it with academics today is it's so isolated in the ivory tower that most people never even see a normie interested in their field. I'm all about public outreach and engagement for what I do, but most of my colleagues couldn't give less of a shit about people who haven't been through 4 years of indoctrination. It's like people who didn't sit in the undergrad decontamination chamber are so hopelessly radioactive that being around them would make them wither away.

So while it would be great to force those people to interact once in a while, they would suck ass at it and you'd see them giving OP-style responses to everyone. Better to have someone who's a subject-matter generalist who can convene with elitist experts on their own level and get the time of day from them on specific questions and submissions from plebs.

A PR guy basically.

>>14764586
Mandlbaur - Rapport's obnoxious, but Mandlbaur is obnoxious as well as full-retarded.


>>14764932
>>14764952
The problem is that 99% of the shit profs get solicited with is pure schizo crap. My first fucking month teaching I got a packet in my mailbox that was some self-published YEC manifesto that I binned instantly. I was putting in 70+ hr/wk that first semester, I'm not gonna fucking waste time reading that shit, even for a laugh.

I had a colleague who does astro go on a trip to an observatory a few years ago, had to take a long cab ride out from the airport. Guy in the car found out he was an astronomer and spent like a fucking hour telling him all about the UFOs and the alien ghosts and how the government set him up on those sex offender to discredit him and keep him from spreading the truth. Like, what the fuck are you supposed to do in that situation apart from either ignore them and act like you're too tired from travel to have a conversation or just nod along and hope you get a chance to tuck and roll out of the car before he takes you to his murdershack?

>>14764963
He sent me about a half-dozen more replies after that, so either his copypasta game is extremely on-point or he has more free time on his hands than he pretends.

>>14765015
>The problem is that 99% of the shit profs get solicited with is pure schizo crap. My first fucking month teaching I got a packet in my mailbox that was some self-published YEC manifesto that I binned instantly. I was putting in 70+ hr/wk that first semester, I'm not gonna fucking waste time reading that shit, even for a laugh.
Which is why it should be someone's job to deal with just that.

>>14764593
>>14764963
>>14764971
He kept engaging with me for a while after that.

>>14764554
>>14764354
>Is it unfair to expect scientists to read an unsolicited paper?
Yes, by and large. If you could summarize your theory in about 1 paragraph and ask for a sanity-check, that would probably be something most professors would indulge. For example:
>I think I have come up with an alternative interpretation of the Michaelson Morely experiment that re-explains feature X in terms of the Doppler effect in place of explanation Y. In a nutshell, Z. Since this relies wholly on gradeschool physics and geometry, so I expect I’m not the first one to think of it, and was wondering if you would know a reference where this hypothesis has been proposed and refuted?
>t. ur secret admirer :3

>>14765021
>Which is why it should be someone's job to deal with just that.
Why? It's the equivalent of paying someone to read all the credit card offers in your mail.

>>14765033
So, that's actually what I did. I didn't ask him for a free review either. Original email in picrel.

>>14765047
Public universities are dedicated to the service of taxpayers. While teaching professors are serving students, someone should be there to do outreach for every department.

Reading and advising amateur researchers on writing and submitting journal articles is the best thing that could happen to the scientific community.

>>14765062
stop harassing actual physicists.

>>14765062
Nothing you wrote there reads like "hey, mind giving me a sanity check?" but it does read like, "Hey, mind giving me your opinion on my work?" which would require this guy reading your paper to give you meaningful feedback.
Whether you meant it or not, you solicited a review.

>>14765067
why should they hire a knowledgeable person to sift through a bunch of crank bullshit 99.9% of the time. your tax dollars are spent better doing actual research from proper scientists.

>>14765091
Because educating the public on academic topics is a good public service. The time they're not spending helping people edit and publish their work can be spent on other forms of outreach, like exhibits at local museums and public lectures on general topics on weekends.

>>14765015
>I'm not gonna fucking waste time reading that shit, even for a laugh.
The way I see it is that you had a lot of advantages that man didn't have, and spending 70 hrs a week pursuing the career you want is a privilege. That other man, through circumstance and lack of means, now works a non-academic job that pays the taxes funding your opportunity to follow your dream. I think you at least owe him the courtesy not to laugh derisively behind his back.

>>14765098
Based moral academic.

>>14765085
>Nothing you wrote there reads like "hey, mind giving me a sanity check?
That's because I didn't ask for a sanity check.
>>14765084
It's a good thing the general public isn't keyed in yet on what these "actual physicists" spend their time on.

>>14765062
>So, that's actually what I did.
No it isn’t. Basically just delete everything
before “it can be summarized”, especially the pdf link which will just annoy them, the last line which sounds like you’re some kind of boss giving orders to an underling, and basically every reference to “me, my, I” which again is the wrong tone to take here except the one necessary “I” in “I have this idea…” State your question simply and clearly, make it about the subject matter alone, and remember that you’re probably not the first one to come up with this in the 100 years since the experiment so what you’re probably looking for is a reference rather than a direct conversation about it

>>14765098
working in academia isn't winning the lottery, retard. the pay isn't that great, considering how long you have to study. also, just because his salary comes from a tiny fraction of your taxes doesn't mean he's your servant.

>>14765106
>>14765106
>the last line which sounds like you’re some kind of boss giving orders to an underling
"If you have any questions please feel free to ask"? In what universe is that an order?
>State your question simply and clearly
I didn't have any question.
>so what you’re probably looking for is a reference
No. That's not what I was looking for.

>>14764361
> t. rejected paper

>>14765117
>In what universe is that an order?
It isn’t an order, it’s a tone thing. Do you want them to write back, or not?
> I didn't have any question.
The what the fuck are you bothering them for?
> No. That's not what I was looking for.
Look, are you serious or are you a crank? If you’re serious then you will want to know first of all if this idea has been proposed, and if so where, so you can go and look at it and the discussion around it

>>14765124
>Look, are you serious or are you a crank? If you’re serious then you will want to know first of all if this idea has been proposed, and if so where, so you can go and look at it and the discussion around it
If he's serious then he already has looked, and he knows if his solution is novel or not.

>>14765033
One of my professors who does research work in cryptology would receive dozens of long-winded papers from people claiming to be able to factor semiprimes (of the size used in RSA crypto) within minutes. He always used to reply with a semiprime from the RSA challenges and one of his own semiprimes, saying he'd give the paper a read if he received the prime factors of the semiprimes. The stupid fucking kooks, happy to be receiving some attention, would keep trying to chat around the request, not even acknowledging it.

>>14765124
>>14765126
>If he's serious then he already has looked, and he knows if his solution is novel or not.
Yep. This isn't a fleeting "idea" that I happened to have. I spent over a year researching and writing in my spare time. I'm well aware of prior work.

>>14765124
>The what the fuck are you bothering them for?
I want them to be aware of my work.

>>14765138
1) Does your model make any new, testable predictions?
2) If so, have you developed or proposed an experiment to test those predictions?
3) If not, can it at least be used to derive results consistent with other related theoretical or experimental results?

>>14765143
If you read the paper you can see he answers #3 in it.

>>14764956
Perfection. That pic is ultimately why the chuds are having meltdowns itt. They think they're Will Hunting-tier smart or something based on their little /pol/ bubble where cogent criticism of their low-IQ meanderings gets drowned in "shill" and "glowie" insults, so they think they can take their show to the real world of academia, and then they see what specks of lint they really are in the eyes of academically accomplished people. They are, in the end, nothing and will never amount to anything.

>>14765143
>>14765149
As the other poster said, I answer that in the paper. And the answer to the other two questions is obvious.

This isn't a theory of everything, it's a paper analyzing the experimental basis of our emission model for light. Yes, it's testable.

>>14764989
hahah this I agree with. Guy was an asshole and should be treated accordingly. Even if he has had multiple emails asking for the same thing, it doesn;t mean he's entitled to treat others with no respect.

You're likely a schizo, but in all honesty, you need to catfish as a hot black or Latina bisexual chick. Register a domain, get some Web hosting, upload tons of hot pics, have a small blog commenting on what sciency shit you're reading, and have a link to your site in your email signature.
This way, you reel in the woke professors, the un-woke professors who are terrified of being called bigots, and the pervy professors who are a degree or less of separation away from someone who visited Epstein's island.

THE RIGHT CAN'T ACADEME.

>>14764956
10/10 hard truth /pol/tards can't deal with. Narcissism is a horrible disorder.

>>14765194
>You're likely a schizo
You can read the paper and judge for yourself. Anyone with a tenth grade education can understand it.

>catfish as a hot black or Latina bisexual chick. Register a domain, get some Web hosting, upload tons of hot pics, have a small blog commenting on what sciency shit you're reading, and have a link to your site in your email signature.
>This way, you reel in the woke professors, the un-woke professors who are terrified of being called bigots, and the pervy professors who are a degree or less of separation away from someone who visited Epstein's island.
I hear you, but that sounds like a lot of work.

>>14765207
>but that sounds like a lot of work.
Now you know how they feel.

>>14765158
>Yes, it's testable.
Have you tested it?

>>14765209
>Now you know how they feel.

>>14765209
Reading a paper is significantly less work. Especially when the math is basic, the main result is summarized, and the argument can be understood from a single figure.

I've really tried to dumb things down as much as possible. Unfortunately, it seems that however dumb I go, people are still dumber.

>>14765214
Suppose I went ahead and ran a test. Do you think I'd be able to publish my results any better than my current paper? Do you think anyone in the scientific community would be convinced?

>>14765216
Dude, I understand that you're frustrated, but it's not just your paper. They get swamped with unsolicited papers, and every author of such a paper is probably sitting there whining like you, complaining that theirs is some special paper that deserves to be read. Ultimately what's being asked is that they read ALL these unsolicited papers.

>>14764420
>>14764354
holy based

imagine getting BTFO this hard

when will you suicide, OP?

>>14765225
Reproducibility. If it's an experiment that is of sound design and easy for others to setup and do for themselves, and gets a result that the existing theory can't explain and yours can, then you'll at least raise some eyebrows.

>>14764554
>32 pages
Yeah I wouldn't read that for free. Standard fees are $50-100 per page. Are you willing to pay for my feedback?

>>14765142
you are a literal nobody attentionwhore with little clue and no formal in the topic you pretend to be knowledgable about

ITS TIME TO FUCKING STOP

>>14765261
Pssh, I'd do it for ten bucks a page. Loan pause is ending next month.

>>14764423
Most of it comes from the government and corporations.

>>14765264
If that's the case, then surely you can tell people why he's wrong instead of haranguing him with personal attacks.

>>14765244
No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't get published, first of all, and if it did, it would be in a journal that physicists would say isn't reputable. They'd look at my credentials and then say I'm not reputable. And if they ever got around to looking at my results they'd pass them off as experimental error.

Optical experiments are extremely complex, sensitive to error, and time-consuming. You're being extremely naive by suggesting that I can simply run an experiment in my basement and have any impact on the physics community.

>>14765216
>Reading a paper is significantly less work.
Perhaps if you've ever professionally reviewed a paper or wrote a non-crank one yourself, you'd realize how much more work it is than you're suggesting.

>>14765285
>then surely you can tell people why he's wrong instead of haranguing him with personal attacks
surely you can get the clue, instead of harassing academics with your hot shizo takes, OP.

>>14765293
I'm not the OP, I'm an anon trying to make you realize your humility.

>>14765291
If the paper is such a crank product then it should be simple to disprove by showing the math is flawed.

>>14765288
>I can simply run an experiment in my basement and have any impact on the physics community
why do you want to be part of the physics community if you have no formal education in the field?
just go to university or take a job there if you have credentials and you will be taken much more serious

there has to be a better use of your time

>>14765296
> I'm an anon trying to make you realize your humility
there is no need for humility as i happen do be an academic myself and familiar with many professors and what they complain about on a daily basis

im an anon trying to make you realize that being a shizo and harassing professors is something that needs to stop
take your meds
if shit like this happens to me the best i do is send one of my pretyped mails with "i will block you, do not attempt to contact me ever again, etc." or just skip that and straight up block
the block function exists specifically for crap like this, shizos that cant get their sperging under control

>>14765305
Especially since, as others have already pointed out, the math is elementary.

>>14765305
It's not worth the time to go through the paper in good faith. No one should be obliged to read your work and spot out the errors, just like you wouldn't ask a professor to double check your homework for a class they don't teach. Time is valuable and it's presumptuous to ask them to do a professional look-over while having literally no relationship with them.

Add to this the fact that cranks don't take criticism very well, or they don't even have the expertise / maturity to understand the criticism, and it's a recipe for failure. See:
https://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/whattodowhentrisectorcomes.pdf

>>14765313
>why do you want to be part of the physics community if you have no formal education in the field?
I have a degree in physics and applied math.

>>14765315
If you feel so strongly, submit to a journal, present to an industry lab, or get yourself into a PhD program
>REEE NO MONEY
a PhD program is a completely funded thing. You live on about 20k-30k.

>>14765323
well then it should be no problem to get a researcher position or join some faculty

>>14765321
>It's not worth the time to go through the paper in good faith.
So you're just being a fag for no reason. You don't have to post here you know.

>>14765321
>it's presumptuous to ask them to do a professional look-over
Again, I wasn't asking for a review.

>>14765323
What type of degree? A BSc is unironically not enough to make any sort of dent, and the PhD is by in large both training and a shorthand for people to trust your work enough to review it.

>>14765334
I'm not the one being a fag. It is not worth the time to go through the paper in good faith. You are not worth the time of day to go in good faith. Earn your chops for credibility.

>>14765330
>>14765333
I make excellent money as a software engineer. I have no desire to go and make my livelihood dependent on academics. Nor do I have any desire to continue studies in physics at the graduate level, given what I already know about existing theory.

>>14765330
>what are opportunity costs?

>>14765345
>I make excellent money as a software engineer. I have no desire to go and make my livelihood dependent on academics. Nor do I have any desire to continue studies in physics at the graduate level, given what I already know about existing theory.
then why do you insist on harassing academics with unsolicited material, if you are not an active researcher on these topics?

>>14765337
>What type of degree?
A BSc.
>A BSc is unironically not enough to make any sort of dent
Yes, I'm aware.

>>14765269
I bet he'll offer $5 for the full thing.

>>14765339
Again, I'm not the OP. Unlike him I am an academic, working in a field unrelated to the OP's. I think you're being a fag and so I want to make sure you understand that.

This is an imageboard and discussion forum where you could offer reasonable critique on a novel approach to science, and if it's crank BS you could end it right now. You're too afraid of challenging yourself with something you might not be able to easily disprove, so you insulted the OP and anyone who is open with you about your shortcomings.

>>14765345
>>14765345
That's cool. The tradeoff is that you have no professional scientific credibility by yourself, largely because professional scientists are right that you almost certainly do not have the expertise nor the ability to produce original research worthy of critique.

The desperation off of your emails makes me feel that the money of your job isn't as satisfying as you're suggesting. You have to have skin in the game in order to play.

>>14765358
disprove it yourself if yo u are and academic
why havent you done it yet? afraid?
you should do that right now actually, just waste few hours on shizo babble, should be very easy and im sure you have endless if time if you post here

>>14765359
It has to be pretty frustrating to have a novel approach in the sciences and be brushed off due to credentialism. That's basically what the Structured Atom Model guys experienced, and even though they're pretty clearly experimentally and theoretically correct (their model predicts behaviors that current atomic theory finds mystifying) it was nearly impossible to get anyone to take them seriously until they got their textbook published.

>>14764690
Its like /sci/ for 99% of the time
>make some intelligent, science based, relevant, and well thought out post
Replies are:
>not reading your wall of text ( if your post is longer than one sentence )
>fucking retard ( if the subject of your post requires a post high school education to understand )
>ywnbaw ( even if your post is not remotely connected to anything to do with a political or social agenda )
>{some irrelevant meme}
Or most likely your post will just simply be ignored.
Solving captchas. We do it for free!

>>14765364
It's not my field. My input wouldn't be valuable. But I'm at least self-aware enough not to call the OP names because I can't review his work.

>>14764898
I see you have spent some time on flat earth threads.

>>14765350
See above. You need to have skin in the game to play. Every academic worth their salt took the plunge in order to be taken seriously. Despite the stereotypes, they're a very careful bunch. Given the numerous cranks trying to penetrate in with results, it's literally not worth the time of day.
>>14765358
But this isn't novel. It's every vixra paper ever
>you could end it right now
don't feel like reading a 32 page paper
>afraid of challenging yourself
not a day passes by where I see at least one arxiv paper with one of two things
1) it betrays my expectations and gets into a conference
2) it betrays my expectations and has a refutation or edit within a month
I'm not a stranger to challenging myself - in fact, I recognize the amount of work it is. It's not worth looking at the paper
>insulted the OP
I'm not the other posters. I have not insulted the OP at all. The only one insult others is you, as you've insisted that I'm a fag over and over for not spending my energy to look at a paper.

Get it published or sit down at a professor's office to have them look at it if you know them. I'm not going to read an unsolicited paper.

>>14765367
>novel approach
buddy, research is the fucking study of novel approaches to science. Get in the line - everyone has a novel approach.
>credentialism
no, this is the basic filter for doing professional science. They literally pay for your schooling, travel accommodations, and sustained mentorship. The reason this credential matters is because it's the one that injects you into professional grade research.

Imagine engineering in the US without ABET. Credentials exist for a reason.
>clearly correct
Every one of you seems to have a persecution complex, as though we want to exclude you. No. This is the basic barrier to having your ideas heard with the basic trust that you've done your homework.

>>14765389
>Every one of you seems to have a persecution complex, as though we want to exclude you. No. This is the basic barrier to having your ideas heard with the basic trust that you've done your homework.
I'm talking to you about a success story. One where researchers were intentionally kept out of the discourse until they managed to get a breakthrough and push into it. Now people are catching on that their ideas are predictive.

>>14765372
>It's not my field. My input wouldn't be valuable.
you could offer reasonable critique on a novel approach to science
but instead you hide behind the "uhhh i canntnttttt do thattttt", but still expect others to engage
are others here supposed to be more knowledgable and proficient on these topics?
no false shame, you got this

>But I'm at least self-aware enough not to call the OP names
muh smug intellectual superiority, mr. enlightened fartsniffer
you are as big of a joke as the average shitposter calling OP (rightfully) a shizo retard
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NO INSULTERIONOS
first day? maybe plebbit is better for you

>>14765397
>you are as big of a joke as the average shitposter calling OP (rightfully) a shizo retard
This is why nobody makes good posts on /sci/ anymore. It's the most shilled and slid board on 4chan after /pol/ because the newfags are unwilling to put in any legwork.

>>14765393
I'm telling you that your story is not theirs, because it's not comparable. There are bad trends in science, especially established theories, but their situation is not yours.

>>14765404
you put in the legwork first boyo

>>14765369
Yeah, but it helps interpreting:
>not reading your wall of text ( if your post is longer than one sentence )
Openly admitted illiteracy
>fucking retard ( if the subject of your post requires a post high school education to understand )
Projection
>ywnbaw ( even if your post is not remotely connected to anything to do with a political or social agenda )
That's kind of the gold medal of breaking a /pol/tard. Especially when it has nothing to do with gender or even politics. You brought them to a point where they can only hit the macro key for this combination.

>>14765288
First of all, if you're just going to be a little defeatist faggot you might as well just quit now and save yourself and everyone else the trouble. Don't start swinging that "wahhh no one would ever consider it anyways they're all out to prove me wrong" horseshit and expect anyone to ever take you seriously.

If the standard optical experiments are too complicated, look more carefully at the implications of your own model and figure out of there's a simpler test you can develop. Alternatively, if experiments are unfeasible, push the theory further and see if you can validate other results attributed to or associated with SR. Einstein's postulate of a constant speed of light is not the only starting point for deriving the transformation laws used in SR, and the effects of time and length contraction are not the only takeaways from it - SR can be derived from the laws of electrodynamics as well (the Lorentz/Poincare approach) and has important implications for the behavior of electromagnetic fields. Have you gone down that rabbit hole to see whether your doppler effect approach can be used to explain electrodynamics behaviors consistent with SR?

>>14765404
>newfags are unwilling to put in any legwork
just like you, someone who asks others to give shizos the benefit of the doubt but himself is unwilling to invest the effort to deboonk it?
you are a hypocrite and what is actually wrong with this place.

>It's the most shilled and slid board on 4chan after /pol/
any evidence or proofs for that, which metric did you use and how big is your sample size? on which days did you collect you samples in assessing the traits "shilled" and "slid" and how did you structure the processing and evaluation of your data?

i know the answer to all of these:
you are talking out of your ass
you have no substance behind your posts yet you still complain about quality
you are a hypocrite and need to check your ego and privilege

>>14765381
>don't feel like reading a 32 page paper
You can read everything you need to know in section 4 if you want to save time.

>>14765428
Hey OP! I did a preliminary reading of your paper based on this comment!
My conclusion: I'm not reading a 13 page paper!

>>14765015
I used to think the same way before considering a position like >>14765098, which is far better, for yourself and every one around you.

I have learned that even the biggest retards and schizos often have some hidden gem to offer, even if its buried deep under a huge pile of ramblings. It may simply be a reminder to reaffirm the burden of truth in science. It may simply be a reminder to count your blessings that you were endowed with a rational mind and the opportunities to develop a career in your area of interest. It may be wake up call to remind you that the vast majority of the population neither has your education or expertise and how that might translate in how you communicate ideas to the public. On a more sinister note it may also give you insights into how to manipulate and profit from others who subscribe to irrational beliefs. On rare occasions it may also stimulate thinking outside conventional scientific boundaries, to consider a problem in a new way. Even if a dead end the rational exploration of the unorthodox can be a worthwhile mental activity.

>>14765438
if that's the lesson you've learned, then put your money where your mouth is and dumpster dive for OP's gem instead of preaching to people who know better

>>14765194
Genius level post. Will you make babies with me?

>>14765423
>Have you gone down that rabbit hole to see whether your doppler effect approach can be used to explain electrodynamics behaviors consistent with SR?
Doppler shift can be used to derive all of electromagnetism from the Coulomb potential. You apply a factor for Doppler shift, differentiate, and you get the force law for Weber's electrodynamics.

Anyway. Yeah, I've taken the theory further and have some interesting results.

>>14765437
You can save even more time and just look at figure 12.

>>14765233
But there is the solution. Instead of a passive aggressive snarky reply just say "That's sounds very interesting, I would like you to forward it for further consideration to this person who has more expertise on the subject..." and send them the email of some other schizo.
After doing this a few times all the schizos will be sending each other their papers and leaving you alone.

>>14765470
>You can save even more time and just look at figure 12.
heres the summary:
doppler shift ... exists ...
wohaaa dudeee, crrrazzyyy!

did you really need 32 pages just to establish that? you could have picked appropriate sources and your paper would be 5 sentences long

>>14765482
>But there is the solution. Instead of a passive aggressive snarky reply just say "That's sounds very interesting, I would like you to forward it for further consideration to this person who has more expertise on the subject..." and send them the email of some other schizo.
>After doing this a few times all the schizos will be sending each other their papers and leaving you alone.
actually this is a really good idea

>>14765510
I should do that. But to be honest, the schizo stuff I get looks so bot-generated that I doubt, this would have any effect.
>Dear Prof. Dr. ${University Name} [I'm not a professor]
>I am an independent researcher from ${third world country}. I send you my paper on ${field completely unrelated to my work}.

>>14765524
dont spam filters remove this?
most uni mailservers just dont even let shit like that through, because if enough people filter the domain it will automatically get adapted into the spam filter

>>14765524
That's interesting in of itself. Why would someone be spamming academics with bot generated papers? Could it just be that they are testing the ability of their bots to get a reply? Or just the chance of pulling off a phishing scam?
I know youtube is getting spammed with bot created "content" but there is some financial incentive to do so and its effectively an open ended domain.

>>14765506
It could be five sentences, but then everyone would say you can't overturn a century of physics by scribbling some circles and writing five sentences. (Incidentally, you can... with the right circles and the right sentences.)

>>14765588
In the end isn't that always how it is? Too little and they say you're not providing enough proof. Too much and they say it's too much work to read.

you failed the scientist's shit test you fucking idiot. when he said
>not an article
you had about 6 seconds to respond with
>not an argument
or
>cope
since you failed to do so, he will not be reading your paper. lurk more next time

>>14765606
>Too little and they say you're not providing enough proof. Too much and they say it's too much work to read.
More like, there's always some dumb excuse. There's no length that they would actually read. People make decisions emotionally and then claim to justify them rationally.

Yes, it's unreasonable. If the abstract doesn't look completely retarded (99% of the time it does with unsolicited papers), I would consider reading it if it interested me.

>>14765321
lol, did not know trisection is such a famous crank-magnet. my brother-in-law was infatuated with it, but he was at least reasonable, meaning that whenever I've found the error du jour, he did acknowledge it and went away for a couple of months.

>>14765536
Our spam filters are exceptionally bad. Top 10 in THE and I get viagra offers at least weekly.
>>14765564
I don't know. Maybe the paper is real and there's a real schizo behind it, or it's some kind of malware embedded in the PDF. I used to get about 10^5-10^6 SSH requests per day on a machine that's accessible from the internet. Likely they try stuff like root/root, root/guest, pi/raspberry. Don't know, don't care, I use fail2ban now, disabled remote root login and only allow login via keyfiles. Also, I Block all requests from countries other than the one I live in and where I have collaborators (most notably I block China).
So I don't know, I don't care, I'm not opening the papers and I don't use Windows.

>>14764354
Thats fine. Pay people for their work.

>>14765456
If you're a woman ("cis" woman, that is) and you're not fat. I'm not asking for much. I'm just tired of banging fatties.

>>14765321
This is sadly amusing because if you go and look in physics textbooks, physicists are the ones using an approximation for Doppler shift at an angle, whereas I've simply taken the precise general formula and applied it to experiment.

There's no reason to use an approximation for a formula when it can be expressed in its complete form, especially in cases where precision matters. It's as if every practicing physicist today is a devout trisector and can't be shaken from their belief that the approximation they're using is really the genuine thing.

If someone points out a serious flaw in my paper, I will immediately stop posting, take down all of my work, and stop pursuing this entirely. I'm dead serious. I have better things to spend my time on. I don't enjoy these kinds of email exchanges. People say that there's no point in arguing with a crank because they can't be shaken from their belief... but, if they can't be shaken from their belief either, how can they be certain who's the crank and who isn't?

In any case, so far, despite the endless amounts of seething every time I post, no one here or elsewhere has attempted to step to the plate.

>>14764358
It is a total outright fucking decietful lie.
“I receive dozens …”. In how long. In their whole career?

Fucking piece of shit evasive cunt.

>>14764586
You are the stinking cunt because of your disgusting ad hominem you piece of shit. FUCK YOU.

>>14764593
He stated cleary that he has received a dozen manuscripts in his whole fucking career retard.

>>14766264
One more thing. Modern physicists claim that there's no classical transverse Doppler effect at all, that any Doppler shift at 90 degrees is a purely relativistic phenomenon. Yet, if you look at figure 12 of my paper, you can see clear as day that there is a wavelength contraction. So, modern physics is predicated on an idea that I can see clear as day with my own eyes is incorrect. It only takes about a second to grasp this.

>>14764690
Or he reads the title and is prejudiced against it and too fucking chicken to face facts and so just brushes it off and gets upset when pressured. Like a veritaphobic cunt.

>>14764707
FUCK YOJ AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU STINKING CUNT.

>>14764924
He literally tells you how to get it read for free, send it to a paper.

>>14766318
He's lying. I've sent it to multiple journals that have rejected it without review.

>>14766323
Yes and that's a good thing. Take your meds and look at the paper again and can probably tell you why.

>>14766339
You are a fucking disgusting prejudiced cunt.

If you know why it is rejected then just say why instead of this shitty behavior.

FUCK YOU.

>>14766348
It's schizobabble nonsense. You are welcome

>>14766318
He is an evasive piece of shit just like you you stinking prejudiced cunt.

>>14766352
That is not reasonable you ignorant fuck.

>>14766353
It's not his job to be a mental hospital tard wrangler, the fact that he responded was his favor to you.

>>14766358
If it is not his job to address a theoretical physics paper then who’s job is it you ducking ignorant moron?

>>14766365
>physics paper
Which paper, where was it published? And reading papers isn't his job anyways.

>>14766371
A physics paper is still a paper even if it is not yet published you fucking asshole.
Who’s job is it to address a physics paper retard?

>>14764354
How much are his consulting fees? It all depends how much work you expect from him. Do you want a detailed review? A quick 2 minute opinion?

>>14765062
You should have given a description in a single sentence and maybe pointed him to the abstract. You haven't explained what it is you actually want from him

>>14766401
>Who’s job is it to address a physics paper retard?
no one's. whoever feels like it, perhaps.

>>14766401
>A physics paper is still a paper even if it is not yet published you fucking asshole.
No it's not and even if you want to definite as such (this post is an unpublished physics paper btw don't disrespect it), I obviously mean real papers.
>Who’s job is it to address a physics paper retard?
Review boards for papers. If you want someone to review yours just pay someone to do it.

>>14766438
A layman can claim that it is not his job. A physicist cannot.

Not reasonably anyway.

>>14766446
Physicists aren't tard wranglers. Just because you claim he should do work for you for free doesn't mean that's his job.

>>14766445
I am not the op here, but I have tried to pay people to address my paper and people in denial are simply incapable of reason.

You are an ignorant retard. If you think that you can just say you don’t want to address it and you are still living up to your responsibilities.

A physicist has an obligation to face up to a proof even if it contradicts beliefs. Otherwise how can any new discovery be implemented if the people responsible just refuse point blank to face the facts?

>>14766453
Nobody said anything about expecting work for free regard. Addressing a new discovery should not be work for a physicist anyway. Retard.

>>14766455
>but I have tried to pay people to address my paper and people in denial are simply incapable of reason.
If you want them to say what you want to hear you gotta pay them more. Just because you got immediately blown out doesn't mean you weren't addressed.

>>14766453
Academics live off of public money and therefore should serve the public on demand. Refusal to do so should be punished with heavy physical penalties. Academics should be treated like slaves and regarded as the lowest rung of society since their life borders of parasitism.

>>14766456
>>14766459
> Addressing a new discovery should not be work for a physicist anyway
The OP physicist does address OP, you not liking it doesn't mean he was wrong.

>>14766461
>The OP physicist does address OP
That's not a respectable way for a slave to address its masters. This "physicist" should have its fingers chopped off so that it can't write any more snarky replies to the people who feed and shelter it.

>>14766464
Schizos don't pay taxes and their consequences to society outweight their contributions even if they do.

>>14766467
This "physicist" had no way to know its dealing with a schizo and therefore should bear the punishment.

>>14766323
>Dear esteemed Professor, i have referenced your work heavily in my paper. I have been rejected by multiple journals without review and I don't understand why. I appreciate that you are busy with greater priorities than dealing with a stranger but could I please have a brief moment of your time to read the abstract and share any initial thoughts? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Mr Fuckwit

>>14766470
He did though, he posted his schizobable at him, you can tell he was a schizo from the fucking thread catalogue let alone email.

>>14766481
Academoid slaves are in no position to make the call about what is or isn't "schizobabble". He should stand trial.

>>14766481
To claim something is schizobabble when you cannot falsify it is disgusting behavior you fucking stinking cunt.

>>14766487
It's already been falsified

>>14766486
babble more schizo

>>14766486
Agree. The problem is that someone has to pay the lawyers to have the law changed.

Perhaps I must start a crowdfund.

>>14766491
It can’t be falsified if nobody is prepared to address it you fuckingdumbass

>>14766478
Lol. People already said my original sounded too desperate.

>>14766435
>You should have given a description in a single sentence and maybe pointed him to the abstract. You haven't explained what it is you actually want from him
I explained everything as clearly and concisely as I could in a few sentences, linked him to the paper on my blog, and attached it to the email.
>You haven't explained what it is you actually want from him
I don't want anything from him. I even told him not to let me distract him from his important work and he kept replying to me.

>>14766611
Well you are not presenting anything to him which contradicts traditional beliefs, so duh.

>>14766624
>Well you are not presenting anything to him which contradicts traditional beliefs

>>14766783
Yea I am. I am the person who discovered that angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14766795
How is angular momentum not conserved?

>>14766795
Was that the time when you were in a room, and it began to rotate around you?

>>14766795
Angular momentum may not be conserved, but isn't COAM still useful as a simplified model of reality?

>>14765564
Phishing/malware shit. Our college gets spam directed at professors to read fake papers or submit papers to fake journals constantly and they're literally always phishing scams. Our college's IT insurance has quadrupled over the last six years because the international faggots in the biochem department literally can't stop responding to or clicking on links in phishing emails.

This is probably the biggest reason why most profs ignore solicitations - they just assume its a scam and delete it without reading. Back in grad school I received an email from someone claiming to be the parent of a freshman trying to arrange for one-on-one tutoring. It seemed on the up-and-up at first, but after the first couple of emails there were little red flags going up. Then they started talking about paying for a semester up front and asking about bank shit and it was like "ah, there it is" and I contacted our IT about it. Turned out dozens of grad students had been receiving the same kinds of emails. Thankfully no one got scammed, but for the rest of grad school any time I got any kind of email from any address that wasn't a university email account asking about tutoring that shit went straight to Trash. I'm sure there were probably a lot of genuine students or parents of students using gmail/hotmail/yahoo shit instead of their school account who I ghosted, but I wasn't going to take the risk or invest the time.

>>14766487
>To claim something is schizobabble when you cannot falsify
you cannot falsify wharrgarbl, and there's nothing to falsify in your belief that 12000 rpm is too much. you really believe that, together with a staggering amount of other stuff, like much of physics and a good portion of math being wrong without anyone noticing.

>>14766936
No. I believe that many have noticed.
I also believe that anyone who noticed faced the same personal attacks that I am facing and gave up.
I am not giving up.
This is too fucking simple and stupid to allow to continue just because a few academics are afraid to face the truth and get away with bullying.
Only insanity can possibly prevent a person with even basic education from immediately recognizing that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14766924
You literally contradict yourself retard. The professors can’t stop
Clicking on it and that is why they haven’t responded to genuine stuff.

You are making excuses for the faggots.

>>14766882
How can it be useful if it predicts 12000 rpm (Ferrari engine speeds) for a handheld classic classroom demonstration?

That is the definition of totally fucking useless.

>>14764898
this. if they had anything worthwhile to say they'd likely already be in academia, but in reality they're just self absorbed imbeciles who are more interested in spreading their intellectual garbage everywhere like a skunk rather than learning anything of actual value.

>>14766795
>I am the person who discovered that angular momentum is not conserved.
Reminder that no matter how many fake papers you post online claiming that chain rule can't be applied to cross products, the following will still be true:
[math]\frac{d}{dt}(\vec{r} \times \dot{\vec{r}}) = \dot{\vec{r}} \times \dot{\vec{r}} + \vec{r} \times \ddot{\vec{r}} = \vec{r} \times \ddot{\vec{r}}[/math]

>>14766850
No. It was after 3 months of 18 hour days doing research and development on an invention.
Part of which involved the construction of mechanical “ice skaters” with intent to conserve as much angular momentum as is possible.

>>14765482
one of the most intelligent posts I've read on /sci/

>>14767016
You stamping your foot on the ground and claiming my paper fake when you have failed to falsify it, is unscientific and delusional.
Also this is literally an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

>>14767024
It is an ignorant post.

>>14767014
If a person invests time in writing a scientific paper which is well written and infallible then why would you refuse to read it?

>>14767026
It's pointless, why should he? Your problem isn't merely a lack of knowledge, it's a severe and untreated personality disorder.

>>14767035
If I invest time in baking a cake with feces then why would you refuse to eat it?

>>14767034
It's a funny post

>>14767039
That is not a reasonable comparison.
If you are being unreasonable then perhaps it is because you are defending an unreasonable position.

>>14767012
But Conservation of Angular Momentum is inapplicable.

Here is my rationale:

(1) The ball comes to a stop eventually. Otherwise it would keep spinning forever
(2) This means there is an external torque stopping the ball. See newton's first law.
(3) Because there is a nonzero external torque acting on the system, COAM cannot be applied. See Halliday and Resnick, First Edition 1961. This is the very book you cite.

>>14767040
It is not funny if you are a person facing that type of prejudiced censorship.

>>14767046
You are not allowed to claim that a centuries old mainstream established demonstration which is still in use today, is not a valid example to falsify COAM.

That is unreasonable.

You are literally shifting the goalposts.

Science should be reasonable.

>>14767054
It is not unreasonable for a demonstration to not match an idealized hypothetical case.
Say someone slides a book off of a ramp. If it does not work exactly like a frictionless ideal ramp and frictionless ideal book, you wouldn't claim gravity is wrong.

>>14767042
Why? No matter how much time I invest, no matter how well the baking technique is, if an ingredient is shit, it will remain shit.

>>14767070
In a physics paper, you have to point out the shit ingredient, and if the all the ingredients are the existing theory and it is the results are shit, then the theory is wrong.

>>14767062
If the ball fell upward, which is similar to the contradiction we discuss, then it would.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

Hello anon,

I followed your Operation Chanology with great interest, and I think your dick must be very large (compared to the average, not mine). Perhaps the following big dick demonstration will interest you.

I have proved the negation of what Tooker is claiming itt. For a full proof you can view my paper at https://goatse.cx but the gist of it is that I am a genius and I don’t need antipsychotics anymore. My dick is extremely large, to the extent that I have to order MySize condoms online. Mostly I am a genius though. Nobody has thought of applying 9th grade trig to a 100 year old experiment. I dunno why everyone else including you is so dumb.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,
Big Dick version of Tooker
>>14765062

>>14764361
You are buying his time, anon. You are not the only customer but you are a rando asking for free critique from a very busy man who doesn't need YOU.

>>14764358
This. You could probably have changed his mind if you had pitched it in a way that demonstrated value (assuming this isn’t a celebrity academic, in which case, good luck), but just asking him to look over the paper is exactly like what he’s saying - asking for free labor.

>>14767098
Bullshit. A physicist has a responsibility to address a new discovery.

As you know OP, it would be pointless for academics to engage with every crank. Not just because of the volume but also the fact that each individual crank is generally incapable of understanding objections to their pet theory. So if reading every paper (like yours) that gets sent to them is out of the question, how are academics to distinguish between whats worth reading and not?

Fortunately theres a process for this: get your shit accepted by a journal. If you arent willing to do the works necessary to overcome the barrier to entry... you probably are actually a pseud and the professor's only mistake was not binning your email.

>>14767026
[math]\vec{r} = x \hat{x} + y \hat{y} + z \hat{z}[/math]

[math]\vec{r} \times \dot{\vec{r}} = (x,y,z) \times (\dot{x},\dot{y},\dot{z}) = (y \dot{z} - z \dot{y}) \hat{x} + (z \dot{x} - x \dot{z}) \hat{y} + (x \dot{y} - y \dot{x}) \hat{z})[/math]

[math]\frac{d}{dt}{(\vec{r} \times \dot{\vec{r}})}_x = \frac{d}{dt}(y \dot{z} - z \dot{y}) = (\dot{y} \dot{z} + y \ddot{z} - \dot{z} \dot{y} - z \ddot{y}) = (\dot{y} \dot{z} - \dot{z} \dot{y}) + (y \ddot{z} - z \ddot{y}) = {(\dot{\vec{r}} \times \dot{\vec{r}})}_x + {(\vec{r} \times \ddot{\vec{r}})}_x[/math]

>>14767084
The more apt analogy to your comparison would be if the ball slowed down when you pulled the string.

>>14767084
I don't think that is an accurate analogy. You are have said that the ball still sped up, but not as fast as 12,000 RPM. So the *magnitude* of the quantity is what is being discussed. Thus a more proper analogue the time it takes for the book on a ramp to slide down, not the direction the book slides.

Back to your demo:

When you narrowed the radius, the ball sped up. You are correct in that it did not speed up to 12,000 RPM. However, recall from earlier that there is an external torque slowing the ball down. So COAM is not applicable.

You could only account for COAM if you factored in that external torque. But you do not.

>>14767105
The process is subject to the same bias that the op is questioning about the professor.

If a paper makes a conclusion which contradicts traditional beliefs then it is rejected without review.

Your advice is literally worthless and costly in editing expenses.

Sorry to be blunt.

>>14767119
By the way, sorry for the poor english, hope it is understandable

>>14767108
You can prove over and over again mathematically that a ball on a string should accelerate like a Ferrari engine.
It will never make nature obey your stupid wrong law of COAM.

>>14767076
It's a cake and yet you wouldn't point whether the shit is in the frosting or the bottom layer. You simply would throw it in the trash and not discuss with a guy who bakes shit into a cake.

>>14765261
>Standard fees are $50-100 per pag
Wait what?

How do I get paid for reading schizo papers?

>>14767116
12000 rpm would absolutely be as shocking as the book falling up.

>>14767133
Nope. It is a professional, well written, undefeated mathematical physics paper.

>>14767104
Except you keep claiming you discovered the easter bunny and he is here to bring us magical chocolate eggs which you conveniently already ate so you could have the magic for yourself. You are not dark skinned enough to get that nonsense taken seriously.

>>14767135
Your feedback is worth shit because you are biased.

>>14767143
Nope. I am the person who discovered that angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14767141
So if I were a professional baker, you'd eat it?

>>14767141
You say it is "professional".
If it so professional, why has it not been accepted by any journal?

>>14767150
Which you have never published in any major media outlet. Why not? What new technology do you suggest be made from your discovery? What machine will you or someone who uses your method be able to invent or improve? Shouldn't you be working on that right now?

>>14767135
The sad thing is, even if I offered editing for money, I would feel extremely bad while accepting a job from a schizo. I don't want to get rich because someone else is mentally ill. That's like stealing from a mentally retarded person.

Remember that COAM is not applicable because there is an external torque.

So it is really not a disproof of COAM at all.

>>14766459
>Academics live off of public money and therefore should serve the public on demand.
Should an English professor be expected to proofread your cover letter for a job application?
Should an Engineering professor be expected to change the oil in your car?
Should a Math professor be expected to do your taxes for you?

Academics are hired and paid to do a very specific set of jobs, not to be on call for every public request.

>>14767163
The sad thing is that you are a retarded asshole who thinks the sun shines out of his ass.

Here is what I think of your editing.

GO FUCK YOURSELF.

>>14766611
>I don't want anything from him
Then why on earth are you contacting him in the first place?

>>14767167
Rebuttal 9 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU CIRCULAR DEFEATED AND IN DENIAL CUNT.

>>14767168
A physicist should address a physics discovery.

>>14767184
I think you have shown your true colors now. I urge everyone to go look at his Rebuttal 9. Does it address my point? Decide for yourself.

>>14767179
Perhaps he is the expert that everyone else is hiding behind and has to be convinced before anyone else will listen.

>>14767190
Of course it defeats your claim that a ball on a string is not supposed to conserve angular momentum, retard.
Referenced equations say it does.
Now go fuck yourself you ignorant cunt.

>>14767174
No, I think the sun has some angular momentum that is conserved.

>>14767184
>9) My equations are referenced and for the real life example presented. You have to accept them as they are or show that my reference work has been retracted. Please stop making fake accusations of an omission or error which is not valid or does not exist in my paper. My paper is reductio ad absurdum so I am presenting the existing physics. You are irrationally claiming an error in existing physics so you agree with my conclusion. Please acknowledge your agreement? http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf How many times are you going to go around this circle?!

It says nothing about torque.

Modus Operandai for Mandlbaur:
>claim COAM is false
>evade arguments against it
>whine about your opponents going in circles when they call out your evasion

>>14767235
I will pretend to be him for a second.
"Stop bringing up made up bullshit torque. You are grasping at straws. Face the fact that 12000 objectively disproves COAM."

>>14767121

It's all good.

Ideas contradictory of the status quo being accepted for publishing is hardly rare. Often problems are found in the experiment or analysis but occasionally they're replicated and thus the process of science advances. What else distinguishes those submissions from the OP's?

>>14767261
Rejection without review.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/rejections.txt

>>14767238
Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14767235
The equations are the existing physics for the existing example of conservation of angular momentum, so torque must be negligible. Fucking obvious.
This is not difficult, retard.

>>14767247
Well said. I would have used falsified more likely than disprove. But yes, well stated.

>>14764354
If you've ever worked in a lab you've seen the kind of crayon scribbles that come in unsolicited, nearly always based on the same set of healing crystals garbage as all the rest.

>>14767513
Read your own textbook, dipshit
See >>14751853

>>14767653
My physics book says that a ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum will accelerate like a Ferrari engine because physics is wrong, You fucking mental bitch.

>>14767668
How much energy will it take pulling on the string to achieve 12000 rpm?

>>14767513
So, to spell out your logicical process:
>The law of conservation of angular momentum states that angular momentum is conserved if torque is negligible.
>This demonstration does not appear to conserve angular momentum, therefore the law of conservation of angular momentum is wrong.
Couldn't it just mean that the torque isn't negligi-
>No! The professor didn't take torque into consideration in the formula, therefore the torque must be negligible, therefore conservation of angular momentum is wrong!

The US federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. Let's call this principle the 'Contract of Adequate Money' or COAM for short. Now, an important caveat of this principle is that if you work more than 40 hours a week, federal law requires that you earn time-and-a-half for this Net Extra Time. Let's call this net extra time [math]\tau_{net}[/math] for short. One week you take someone else's shifts and end up working 60 hours. COAM predicts you should earn $435.00, but instead, when payday comes, you $507.50. This result doesn't imply that COAM is wrong and that the minimum wage is actually $8.46/hr, it just means that we neglected [math]\tau_{net}[/math] from our calculation when it shouldn't have been neglected. We can still apply COAM to get a rough, back-of-the-envelope estimate of our paycheck, but if we want a more accurate estimate we need to relax some of our simplifications and solve the more complex problem.

>>14767668
No, dipshit, it says COAM when the net torque is zero.
It says such in the last fucking sentence before the first equation.

Mandlbauer once again destroying a legitimate thread with his schizophrenia. I'm sorry OP, I hope your discovery gets through to people.

>>14767734
The fact that I am being personally attacked does not make me responsible for the psychotic behavior of a bunch of retarded scientists in denial. Asshole.

>>14764389
Not if the paper was worth anything.

>>14767689
No, it does not say that a ball on a string demonstration does not conserve angular momentum, retard.

>>14767683
Yes, exactly. See rebuttal number 17
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14767685
Rebuttal number 11 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14767187
What discovery?

>>14767631
I accuse you of exaggeration. How many unsolicited papers have you had in a year average? Honestly.

>>14764777
he proposes to debunk basically all of physics while not even understanding dimensional analysis. tl;dr: he thinks the speed of light is non-constant and has units of that aren't even speed.

>>14767761
Some of the greatest papers in history are very concise and can be read in minutes.

>>14767773
Did you reply to the wrong person?

>>14767734
john doesn't destroy threads on his own. he has a hoard of reddit groupies who followed him here who are just as mentally ill as he is.

>>14767810
I am the only one who can see and the blind ones are following me around slandering me because they are terrified of the truth

>>14767809
Nope. You are just too retarded to see the obvious reply to your suggestion that my discovery has no use.

>>14767787
he also thinks angular energy is a vector and that this explains gyroscopes (to anyone competent in math, it is obvious from the equation that angular energy is not a vector.)
funnily enough, the math required to turn angular energy into a vector gives you... angular momentum, not energy.

>>14767829
i'm not talking about john, i'm talking about nathan. nathan is just as stupid and delusional. the fact you couldn't figure out who i was bashing is all the evidence i need that they're both delusional schizos.

>>14767810
Did he get banned off reddit or something? Why did he end up here, and why does he shit up other topics?

>>14767787
I have no idea what your dispute is but your behavior is pure ad hominem evasion.
I believe the other guy because you are clearly shitting yourselves from his truth.

>>14767775
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

>>14767837
no idea. a cursory glance at their subreddit shows some people chronically obsessed with him, e.g. this dumb fuck.
https://www.reddit.com/user/AZForeman/submitted/

>>14767837
Rebuttal number 22 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14767845
hi Alex, please fuck off back to twitter, reddit, etc.
https://nesa.osu.edu/people/foreman.230

>>14767833
The guy is busy slandering me by relating me to Nathan.
If you are such a pushover faggot then FUCK YOU.

>>14767829
I invented the term angular energy you fucking idiot. I define it as a vector.

>>14767845
>>14767852
should someone email his PI and inform him that Alex is wasting a lot of time posting on reddit, twitter, and a pedophile board in 4chan? we can include screenshots of his posts on reddit linking to 4chan. also, kek at this dumb humanities faggot thinking he belongs on /sci/. guess that makes two retards from OSU shitting up this board.

>>14767810
Exactly. They are his enablers

>>14767866
They are busy assassinating my character

>>14767867
That's right. They should just stop replying such nonsense to you since they'll never falsify your work

>>14764354
>that fucking email
just have your phd students read spam papers lmfao retard

>>14767864

>>14767685
>Let's call this principle the 'Contract of Adequate Money' or COAM for short.
Fuck you, I was drinking coffee.

>>14767917
Don't PhD students get abused enough as it is?

>>14767867
>shoot self in the dick
>"Why have you people done this to me?"

>>14767962
Rebuttal 22 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14767958
>Don't PhD students get abused enough as it is?
Nope.

>>14767958
Yes they get abused some of them are literally forced to fake confirm conservation of angular momentum.
It is fucking impossible because angular momentum is not fucking conserved.
But you are so wrapped up in your delusions and have so much invested in it that you are hostile to any questions.

>>14767977
Based but also I'm a grad student and feel like a shriveled up wojak. Some of us do deserve to get bullied more though.

>>14767964
>defend my work against logical fallacy
what logical fallacy is exhibited in >>14767108 ? it's literally just the math for distributing a derivative for a cross product

>>14764354
maybe I am a brain-let but having actually looked up the angular momentum equations they really do seem like complete nonsense.

L = p * r.
Angular momentum and linear momentum cannot possibly both be conserved because you easily as r can easily be changed by pulling two spinning weights closer together.

Is this schizo thread still alive?

>>14768067
Wait, no I am retarded. I see how it works now. Shortening the radius takes energy to pull the weights inward. That energy is what causes the linear momentum to increase.

>>14767829
>angular energy is not a vector.
Literally everything is a vector

>>14768087
In which direction does the release point tomorrow?

>>14767964
mind-broken fucking retard

>>14765369
Not reading your wall of text, fucking retard.
Also ywnbaw

>>14768072
Schizo threads never die anon, you should know this by now

>>14766292
>He stated cleary that he has received a dozen manuscripts
>a dozen
Your reading comprehension isn't very good.

>"I receive dozens of unsolicited manuscripts such as yours to read."

Dozens, aka more than one dozen.

>>14764354
OP i'll buy your white paper, ill pay the same price as toilet paper, you up for it? I can buy a bunch, obviously ill cut % because it's flat and not meant to properly wipe my ass

>>14768084
Yes, obviously, right, except that engineers literally keep p the same when they make predictions and literally (because of the math) change L.

>>14764354
Yes, and it's even more unfair to expect them to dissect your paper and hold your hand in explaining why it's shit if they do read your paper and decide that it's shit.

>>14768009
It is logical fallacy because it is directly evading the presented argument and simply contradicts the conclusion, so it is what is called a formal logic fallacy.
When you face a logical argument, you have to either show false premisses or you have to show bad logic, or you must accept the conclusion.
Presenting math which contradicts the drawn conclusion is directly illogical. Hence it is a formal logic fallacy.

>>14768806
Surely, if they read a paper and decide it is “shit” then there must be a reason it is shit, right. It is not as if there is any work in deciphering what is shit if you have already decided is shit then you must know exactly why it is shit. Why not just say why so that the author can try to improve it?

If you decide it is shit but you can’t say why it is shit, then that is prejudice by definition, right?

Bias is not good science, right?

>>14765869
Acknowledged in the book as an error, as you said, they keep coming back.

>>14768812
go jump off a cliff.

>>14768998
I am sorry, have I said something which upsets you, Anon?

>>14767096
I agree but he still sounds like a raging midwit with a complex.

>>14768812
>It is logical fallacy because it is directly evading the presented argument
The presented argument was that product/chain rule approach can't be applied to a cross product, and your entire basis for it was a grade school understanding of what a cross product is. >>14767108 is just literally taking the derivative of the fully-worked out cross product and showing that it does indeed yield the same result as applying product/chain rule to the cross product.

You're not even arguing over interpretations of physics anymore at this point; you've gone full "2+2=5" mode.

>>14764354
>your doctor to give you a check up in their spare time
That's literally my doctor's job
>ask your mechanic to give your car a tune up for free
He plugs in a cable to the ECU and runs a program, so he actually does do it for free (at least for my family) since we're good friends.

Of course, I don't live in the hUsTlE aNd BuStLe of the big city so I actually form meaningful relationships with people.

>>14769786
bugpeople don't understand that society functions on trust. Most of these professors don't want to see anything that challenges them.