/sci/ - Science & Math

Perhaps I need to explain it in zombie:
Physics say ball spin very fast.
Ball no spin very fast.
Physics wrong.

>>14784014
what?

>>14785219
Is this difficult?
Physics predicts that a typical handheld demonstration will spin faster than my Ducati engine red-lines. The demonstration obviously does not yield anywhere near that magnitude of result.
Physics is wrong.

>>14785242
maybe you calculated it wrong

>>14785251
Nope. My calculations are 100% correct. Physicists agree that my calculations are 100% correct.

>>14785242
Maybe the demonstration is just an example, and it isn't a closed system like the textbook says.

>>14785257
Then physics is wrong.

>>14785258
not that just means the model doesn't match that particular experiment.

>>14785262
No. If the model does not match the centuries old mainstream physics demonstration, then clearly physics is wrong. Zombie.

>>14785267
That's not the conclusion to make though.
If you refine the model, including a more detailed representation of the known physical phenomena and it still doesn't match reality, then you can say the physics must be wrong.

>>14785273
Incorrect. If the prediction does not match reality then the theory is wrong. That is the key to science.

Making excuses why the theory makes wrong predictions is pseudoscience.

You behave like a zombie.

You are dead but you don’t accept that.

>>14785276
There's a crucial difference you're misunderstanding.
The model of an experiment is different from physics theories.
A particular model can be insufficient because you're not accounting for some things, yet that doesn't automatically invalidate the theory you used.
If you want to invalidate the theory you have to make sure you account for all relevant physical effects and then show that model is still not predictive of reality.

>>14785276
Both are just rough examples to approximate/explain one part of a physical concept. They're inexact and not intended to be perfect because they're just trying to provide visual stimulus for the real theory.

>>14785281
Incorrect. All I have to do is show that the prediction does not match reality. Then you have the burden of proof.

Stop trying to shift it.

You are like a zombie.
You are dead but you won’t accept it.

>>14785288
I am not asking for perfect.

Zombie

>>14785297
But you are. You're comparing a perfect idealized scenario with a vague representation designed to get brainlet undergrads to understand one aspect of the formula.

>>14785315
Nope. I am pointing out a contradiction, not an imperfection. Zombie.

>>14785321
You can't know it's not an imperfection of the model if you haven't considered the significant effects at play.

Hey retard!
kys

>>14785323
I can because 12000 rpm is objectively contradictorially wrong. Zombie

>>14785325
FUCK YOU YOU STINKING CUNT.
KILL YOURSELF.

>>14785334
Well duh, it's not supposed to fit the model exactly. It's just a way of explaining some aspects of the model to dumb undergrads. A photograph of someone isn't literally them, but it represents them in facsimile well enough to explain what they look like.

>>14785366
12000 rpm contradicts reality zombi.
You are fucking mental.

>>14784014
>>14785144
>>14785242
You are godawful at communnication, which leads me to believe you have low IQ

>>14785423
You being unable to comprehend that which you are biased against does not indicate anything about me, zombie.

>>14785343
>>14785382
Why are you being so angry? Everybody is being nice and you're just becoming increasingly agitated.

>>14785435
Why are you imagining your own version of my demeanor as being bad?

Could it be that you are upset by the fact that COAM is false and transferring your feelings upon me?

Zombie.

>>14784014
Hey Mandlfag,
How does it feel knowing that you’re going to be a joke among physics undergrads for centuries to come because your autism coupled with your narcissism doesn’t allow you to see your very easy and basic misunderstanding of what you’re trying to disprove?

>>14785445
You are the joke and literally will be for centuries because you are unable to comprehend that 12000 rpm is objectively wrong, zombie.

>>14785449
Are you very afraid of the zombies John?

>>14785470
Why would I be afraid of mentally deficient behavior?
Zombie.
Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop being desperate and personally attacking the messenger.

Someone post the image

>>14785481
Here is the picture of you.

>>14784014
YOU are arrogant and ignorant.

>>14785481
https://files.catbox.moe/464zyh.png

>>14785528
Ignorance is knowing that COAM predicts 12000 rpm for an example that is hand held and common but being unable to process it reasonably.

Ie: you.

>>14785428
Or maybe you're bad at verbalization

>>14785671
I am very good at verbalization and my papers and responses are clear and concise and well written.

The fact is that you and others have a mental problem facing facts.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM because COAM makes that prediction for a typical classic ball on a string demonstration and 12000 rpm does not happen in reality.

That is as clear as it can possibly be explained.

Can you understand that or are you still a fucking zombie?

>>14785690
>everybody calls him a schizo who can't speak
>"NO I'm right and everybody else is wrong!"
not very convincing

>>14785690
>12000 rpm
>insisting constantly
Kek I remember you, you've always been doing this exact shit. Might be a bot

>>14785696
You wish it was a bot. What it is severe mental illness.
This was posted 5 years ago and he's still seething and coping every single day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkRsmjV1mfE

Bunch of ignorant zombies can’t face up to 12000 rpm.

>>14785713
Go post another answer on quora and make another twitter and reddit post and create another thread John. Your behavior over the past 6 years is not clinically obsessive at all.

>>14785713
>>14784014
Boy am I glad I don't have to deal with your bullshit in real life

>>14785702
>This was posted 5 years ago
Damn. Mandelbaum hasn't aged well...

>>14785736
Obviously I am obsessed zombie. I have made a historical discovery. You must be a fucking Mental case.

>>14785804
You do have to deal with the fact that COAM is false, zombie. You are just doing so badly right now.

>>14784014
Why don't you run a test and collect some data?

>>14785826
Because I can show you as much data as I like and you will just neglect it, like you neglect 12000 rpm which objectively falsifies COAM.

Here is data. Please face it you fucking ignorant moronic zombie.

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

>>14784014
Would you please post your address so we can send you to the fucking looney bin already? You need antipsychotics

>>14785866
My address is clearly stated in my paper but your are so afraid to face the truth that you have not even looked, fucking idiotic zombie.

FUCK YOU.

>>14785276
lol, someone just covered philosophy of science 101 topics and thinks falsifiability is king. Dunning-Kreuger out in effect.

Popper has been BTFO since but is still popular.

Newton's laws were falsified almost immediately. They didn't correctly predict orbits in our solar system.

Did we jettison them and return to epicycles?

No, people posited masses we couldn't see effecting the orbits. They were later proven correct by observation.

You keep a paradigm until you have a better one to replace it. Einstein's space-time is creaking with holes, but there isn't a good replacement yet.

Look into Kuhn. Most scientific work is small iterative steps to flesh out a model. Occasionally entire models get thrown out in paradigm shifts, but only when there is a better replacement. Replacing something usefully predictive with nothing would make knowledge impossible.

The problems with this are when experimental data is rejected because it violates the laws of a paradigm. Our laws are useful simplifications, not real laws.

Nothing is actually falsifiable, see Quine. It's also not possible to know what is unfalsifiable ahead of time. Mach thought atoms were unfalsifiable. Similar arguments were made against non-Copenhagen QM and quarks.

Scientific inquiry is dynamic and doesn't have hard and fast ruled. Brainless mistake this for it being arbitrary. Things can be subjective but not arbitrary. Entropy is an example of something that is subjective but not arbitrary (see the Gibbs Paradox).

John, just a reminder that is you actually watch and listen to the videos you present that they contradict you.
Oh, this too
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
You cant say your source is valid and invalid at the same time. You either trust it or you don't.
The professor, oof you trust home enough in one demonstration then you have no excuse to not trust him in an experiment. Oh, and you have to pay attention to what he is saying, the assumptions he use are critical and not to be ignored.

Why the fuck is OP talking about hand holding?

>>14785836
Why not use planetary orbital data? If there's something wrong with angular momentum, it would probably be evident in a pure vacuum with no other forces acting on the system.

>>14785914
No. I do not have to trust someone who refuses to conduct the necessary experiment and tries to desperately replace it with one he can manipulate. Zombie.

>>14785919
Because I used the ball on a string to prove my claim and you are neglecting the evidence and neglecting the fact that the burden of proof is on you.

Because you are a fucking zombie.

>>14785921
Then you admit that at least one example you use is invalid.
Additionally, only a demonstration intended to result in 12000rpm is valid, per your post. None of the examples you rely on are valid. You have no demonstration or experiment that you can use as proof, per your own posting.
Thank you got that admission.

>>14785950
Nope. The examples I use are valid. The example you presented is false. Zombie

>>14785957
Damn retard, you are one dumb fuck.
You just said your trxtbook is invalid.
As that is the source of your paper your paper is objectively invalid, you just said so.
The professor as a source too is invalid, so there goes using him in your 'measurements'.
Y
To be John or someone willingly larping as him, the best example of being pathetic.

>>14785423
he took the shot

>>14785958
Bullshit. I have never said that you lying zombie.

>>14785990
Can you go fuck yourself with your ad hominem you stinking piece of shit.

You are evading the evidence you fucking zombie.

FUCK YOU.

>>14786004
But you just did in this very thread.
You are just proving yourself to be a lying sack of shit, not even trustworth to count how many noses are on you face.

And so? Why does this remotely matter? What has this "discovery" helped you to glean? Your claims are insignificant.

Hey, Alex. Or do you prefer Az? Which posts are yours? Looking to post this on /r/mandlbaur? Make sure to include this post.

>>14786061
You make up my words for me and then accuse me of lying. Insane mf.

>>14786082
No, you don't pay attention to what you are actually saying when you post.

>>14786065
That’s what they told Copernicus when they rejected his discovery. They were stupid then and you are being stupid now.

How can you even begin to think that a fundamental mistake in the basic laws of physics is “insignificant” zombie.

>>14786125
I know exactly what I post you deceitful pice of shit. FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop behaving like a fucking zombie.

>>14786149
Then you acknowledge that you are a liar.
Congratultions.

>>14786158
I do not lie about 12000 rpm falsifying COAM and I do not deserve to be treated badly just because I demand that you listen.

>>14785242
Now do it in vacuum with no friction between any of the mechanisms of the system
Mathematics is an idealization, you can do anything in theory, but there are a shitton of variables you have to take into account in reality

>>14786176
See there you go again.

>>14786202
There I go again presenting what I have discovered. It makes you uncomfortable so you would simply rather not talk about it, because you are a fucking zombie.

Sorry zombie. But you have to face up to the fact that angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14786183
No. I have fulfilled the burden of proof. You do it in a vacuum, zombie.

>>14785911
Fucking zombie appealing to tradition and neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM by claiming it imaginarily defeated in the past.
Go fuck your ignorant self, zombie.

You lose.

Stop wanking around and wasting everyone’s time you fucking bad loser making a fool of yourself, zombie.

Irrelevant of your imagination, COAM is false.

>>14786610
You haven't fulfilled any burden of proof, flat earth retard. Either back up your batshit insane claim (that putting energy into a system doesn't increase its energy) with evidence or GTFO.

>>14786713
Please see rebuttal number 1 you common fucking in denial fucking neglecting the fucking evidence fucking zombie.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14786604
There you go again lying like the sack of shit that you are.
We've discussed this plentyjust keep blissfully digging that hole.

>>14786837
I am not lying.
I am presenting my discovery.
12000 rpm does objectively falsifies conservation of angular momentum. Stop behaving like a zombie

>>14786966
Yes, you have made several p9sts that were blatant lies.
You can't hide from your posts, from the archive.

>>14787042
I do not lie. You are lying through your teeth because you are totally afraid of the truth that COAM is false.

>>14786735
Fuck off with your canned gish gallop responses retard, like any other flat earth retard every single thing you ever say has already been rebutted ten thousand times in every thread yet you still keep going in circles like some kind of NPC.

>>14787085
See, there you go again you can't help yourself

>>14787091
I have canned responses because every zombie acts the same.
You lose if I have a canned response to your obviously stupid argument because you present previously defeated argument.

No matter how many times you have presented the same defeated argument you circular ficking retarded zombie.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14787092
I do not lie and you falsely accusing me of lying does not change the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, repetitive stupid zombie.

>>14787098
Pinocchio

>>14787096
Well, my canned response trumps yours so there.
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
Your paper is invalid per your own logic.

>>14787111
Only if you are a fucking zombie in denial. 12000 rpm falsifies COAM.

>>14787107
Stop being an evasive zombie asshole. It makes no difference how many times you make childish bully accusations.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14787140
Hurts, doesn't it? Having to face the truth, that is.

>>14787140
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14787151
You can repeat the same evasive non-evidence as much as you like, but until you show a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm, you lose. Zombie.

>>14787149
The truth is that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and I am sorry that you are hurt by it.

>>14787203
It is not evasion to ignore your ball and string red herring. Until you can show that angular momentum is not conserved in a closed system, your opinion does not matter.

>>14787207
No, the line of posts is about you being a liar.
What is wrong with you that you can't even follow a line of a few posts?

>>14787208
the anon John was replying to
no evasion going on, the linked video and the page from his references are on point.
It gets him started with his baying.

>>14784014
what is this thread

>>14787236
unmedicated schizophrenia sprinkled with delusions of grandeur
>why won't physicists spend billions of dollars refuting my delusions?

>>14787208
The ball on a string is a classic physics demonstration of COAM. Whether it is a “closed system” or not is irrelevant.
There is bbl torque, so it is supposed to obey COAM.
You are shifting the goalposts.
Fucking ignorant zombie.

>>14787229
No. The line of posts is about COAM being false and you are so desperate to evade that fact that you make up an ad hominem argument like an ignorant zombie. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14787296
Physics should at least spend 2 dollars to measure a ball on a string and confirm COAE.

>>14787236
This is yet another presentation of what I have discovered being trolled by scientificists who refuse to measure and only insult the messenger.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Face the fact and stop groupthink baying.

>>14787648
I put water in a pot, and it starts boiling 5 minutes later
This means conservation of energy is false.

>>14787665
No. Duh.

>>14784014
>These are the people trying to disprove Relativity, everyone

>>14787665
Please see example 4 at about 27:45 where prof young explains very clearly why the ball on a string is “an example of COAM.”
Stop weaseling and trying to shift the goalposts.
COAM is false

>>14787682
Are you mental or something. COAM is false. Simply falsified by any unbiased measurement. That means relativity is false. Nobody is trying to falsify it. It is falsified already.

I am simply pointing it out.

COAM is false.

>>14787648
>Whether it is a “closed system” or not is irrelevant.
No, it is not irrelevant at all, regardless of what the voices in your flat earth mind are telling you.

>>14787684
Stop weaseling an accept that conservation of thermal energy is false
A pot of watter should not suddenly heat up according to the laws of thermodynamics
The pot of water falsifies COTE
COTE is false

>>14787695
If the law of COE predicted that the pot of water heated up itself to boiling point within a second by the energy added from a professor pulling a string in 45cm then that would be similar to a ball on a string predicted to do 12000 rpm.
Face facts zombie. COAM is false.

>>14787694
It is totally irrelevant. COAM requires only that there is no torque. Are you claiming that prof. Young is a liar, zombie?

>>14787720
And what if there is torque, say from air resistance

>>14787718
Face facts zombie. COTE is false
COTE predicts that things stay the same temperature, but the water heats up. You can't explain this

>>14787725
Stop being a troll. Zombie. 12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM. Face the truth.

>>14787723
Nobody has denied the existence of friction. Zombie.
The fact that this demonstration is claimed by physics and physicists to confirm COAM means that it is negligible.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM because it is a massive discrepancy which not explained by you grasping at straws.

>>14787730
Stop being a troll. Zombie. The pot of water objectively falsified COTE. Face the truth.

>>14787720
There is torque, dumbass.
Are you still on about your lie about the professor and textbook claiming that there are no external torques whatsoever?

>>14787736
You denied friction, retard, by saying there are no external torques.
>The fact that this demonstration is claimed by physics and physicists to confirm COAM means that it is negligible.
No, that doesn't follow at all. You are illogical and not reasonable.

>>14787753
Nope. I use referenced equations for the example and existing physics neglects friction because it has a negligible effect on the results.

You saying friction and neglecting 12000 rpm being objectively wrong, is fucking insane and unscientific, zombie.

>>14787750
Nobody is denying friction, zombie.
Friction has been deemed negligible by existing physics. Why do we have to talk in fucking stereo, zombie. Fuck off with your stereo pretend to be two people fucking insanity. Fuck you.

12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM. Face facts instead of being a crackpot.

>>14787653
See, you are a liar, a sack of shit liar.
You ae saying i dont know what i am posting about.
John is a liar.

>>14787664
John stating that there are no measurements, again?
How typical of the lying shit.
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14787684
Sure, just ignire what he saying before that point.
you disgraceful lying sack of shit.

>>14787689
There you go again lying about unbiased measurements.
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

>>14787689
>Are you mental or something.

>>14787759
>Friction has been deemed negligible by existing physics
No, it hasn't. Stop making shit up, liar.

>>14787736
Liar.
You've denied it fucking plenty if times.
The professor will staye that there are some assumptions made in the demonsteations. That you don't know ye says this or that you ignire it is no better than lying.

>>14787757
You are taking equations that apply to a closed system and applying them to what you already know is an open system. Garbage in, garbage out. We don't need to rewrite physics just because (you) don't know how to do basic math.

>>14787778
My equations are referenced and they neglect friction so physics has assumed negligible friction. Zombie.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14787759
I have no idea what you are talking about, 4channel threads are not a good format to have serious discussions anyway. Send me a pm and we could talk like normal people

>>14787757
Fucking liar. You can't keep steaight what claims and statements you,'ve made.
You have contradicted youself in a but a few posts.

Remember when John got BTFO'd by the existence of the moon?

>>14784014
I'm convinced that one day Mandlbaur will start a thread about how [insert antipsychotic] cured his mental illness and this whole thing turns out to be a convoluted pharmaceutical advertisement.

>>14787781
>>14787782
Must I have 3 fucking discussions with one zombie now.

Fuck you.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

Stop weaselling.

>>14787784
Read your damn textbook you lying dipshit.

>>14787784
>My equations are referenced and they neglect friction
...because they apply to a closed system, which a ball and string is not and you know it.
>so physics has assumed negligible friction
No, it hasn't. Stop making shit up, liar.

>>14787789
Yes you are a wishful thinking fuckjng zombie who now has four fuckjng discussions going trying to give his stupidity credibility.

FUCK YOU ZOMBIE.

>>14787790
stop being such a circular fucking retard and face the fact that nobody cares about your red herring, we're just here to laugh at a funny lolcow.

>>14787791
My paper shows existing physics. You have to show us 12000 rpm or accept the conclusion zombie.

>>14787790
You can't weasel out of your own posts, liar.
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
Be a good chap and post the link to your page 195 again? You know, the page that shiws the world you can't read worth a shit.

>>14787796
Your paper only shows you have shitty reading comprehension.
That and you are a liar.

>>14787795
Fuck you zombie.
Stop trolling.

COAM is false. COAM is false.
COAM is faaalse.
COAM is false COAM is false.
COAM is faaalse.
Grow up and face facts fucking ignorant fucking zombieee

>>14787797
he thinks "Such a force [as the downward pull on the string] exerts zero torque on the object" means "EXTERNAL TORQUES DO NOT EXIST LOLOLOL"

>>14787797
Presenting the same evasive stupid defeated shit over and over again like a fucking zombie again. Makes you a fucking asshole.

Fuck you. Show us 12000 rpm or concede.

>>14787796
You cant even provide an example of your traditional demonstration that meets the conditions in you paper.
The very foundation of your paper is a joke.

>>14787803
No. Professor young explains very clearly in example 4 that there is no torque and it is an “example of COAm” you are trying to shift the goalposts because you are an ignorant zombie.

>>14787805
Show us 2rps and a 10:1 radius reduction or fick off.

>>14787777
STOP POSTING PHOTOGRAPHS OF ME YOU FUCKING INSANE DOXING CUNT

12000 RPM OBJECTIVELY FALSIFIES COAE

>>14787808
Yes, he does use those words but interstingly enough you choose to eave out the context.
That is lying by ommission. You are a lying piece of shit.

>>14787806
The conditions in my paper are that I assume that existing physics is right.

So your argument is lot that my proof that physics is wrong, is wrong because physics is wrong.

You circular fucking zombie.

>>14787808
No, what he said is that pulling on the string is not a torque. The same thing that your textbook said (and you also lied about, claiming that your textbook says there are no external torques whatsoever.)

>>14787812
The context is a fuckjng ball on a string demonstration you fucking psychotic zombie.

>>14787814
Fuck man, you no longer know what you have written.
That is sad, very fucking sad.

>>14787815
He then says immediately after that since there is no torque that “we have an example of COAM”, zombie.

You are a fucking fraudulent piece of shit.

>>14787816
See, you can't help but lie.
The video is available, you can't hide from it.

>>14787816
The context is the fact that pulling on a string is not a torque you fucking circular retard. He is not saying that a ball and string is a closed system.

Hi, I’m new to this thread.

>>14787818
>He then says immediately after that ... there is no torque
...because pulling on the string is not a torque, retard. It increases the ball's rotational energy, not its angular momentum.

>>14787818
You need to pay more attention to the general diacussions in the videos several minutes before and after the demonstrations. You are missing some critical statements.
That or you are one again lying, which you have been shown unable to help yourself.

>>14787821
Hi anon, this is what's commonly referred to as a "schizo containment thread." Feel free to watch but please do not feed the animals.

>>14787820
He says “we have an example of COAM”. You shift the goalposts, zombie.
You are literally just flooding the comments with intent to hit the bump limit. You psychotic fucking zombie.

FUCK YOU YOU STINKING PIECE OF SHIT.

This is A.J Foreman. Ladies and gentlemen.

A fucking psychotic zombie with an attitude and zero education in the field.

>>14787827
Wanker.

>>14787821
Stick around, the schizo might stay braying again.>>14787830

>>14787825
He's mentally ill, he actually believes he's not lying.

>>14787839
The funny thing is that in his text book and all the professir examples he uses pronouns all the clues needed to delve past the no net torque criteria of the idealized COAM relationship...his mensa ass can't see what a first year physics student is taught in the lectures.

>>14787830
I'm not that redditor that you doxxed bro. Sorry to burst your bubble.

>>14787849
He's not capable of identifying the difference between an example and reality.

>>14787859
Well you behave the same fucking zombie. So you are one of his Reddit bum buddies.

>>14787873
You are having a problem recognizing that 12000 rpm is not reality so COAM is false, zombie.

>>14785878
Hey John(?), I tried asking you on twitter while I was b& here, but I don't think you ever replied.

>>14785911
>Einstein's space-time is creaking with holes, but there isn't a good replacement yet.
Because everyone that argues against it is dismissed as an unhinged mental patient.

>Replacing something usefully predictive with nothing would make knowledge impossible.
That's the most unscientific statement currently on this board.

>>14787682
Weird how that thread got pruned shortly after some legitimately valid discussions were later brought up.
It's almost like there are people who are trying to oppress any scientific discussion, so that they can publish research and claim that (((they))) made some revolutionary discoveries.

>>14784014
Go collect your noble prize already retard. Publish or STFU

>>14788536
Never heard of publication bias, zombie?
It is rejected without review hundreds of times despite my best efforts along with expensive professional editing services employed sometimes sequentially until they swapped commas back and forth.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM or you STFU, ignorant fucking zombie.

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

>>14788502
Well you are basically directly disagreeing with conservation of angular momentum.

Your argument appears literally to be that my proof that physics is wrong, is wrong because physics is wrong.

Which I am sure you will agree is fucking zombie.

>>14788552
You appempt to Publish in multiple inappropriate journals, no fucking duh they get rejected.
Just another lie.
You claim to be a member of Mensa, fucking act like it.

>>14788708
Fuck you zombie.
I submitted to appropriate journals and when rejected there tried one or two journals which may have been less appropriate.

The fact is that a historical discovery is appropriate in any fucking journal anyway.

Fuck you ignorant asshole.

Are you too stupid to make up your own mind if 12000 rpm is realistic.

Yes, because you are a fucking zombie.

>>14788761
>The fact is that a historical discovery is appropriate in any fucking journal anyway.
Damn Mensa boy, you went full retard.

>>14788795
It is absolutely fact that’s every single journal I submitted to is appropriate for the discovery.

Fuck off zombie asshole.

Autism is a hell of a drug.

>>14788808
Even if I am genuinely autistic, which I am not, it does not make me wrong you ignorant fucking irrational fucking zombie.

>>14788803
Not when the birthdays themselves state the they are not appropriate, you fucking liar.

>>14788843
Birthdays? Haha. Fucking autocorrect
That should obviously be journals

>>14788848
When the journal editor is a fucking zombie rejecting a historical discovery without any valid fucking reason the bulkshit he makes up is irrelevant.

Now fuck off zombie.

You are making dumb ass excuses and you are neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM because you are a fucking zombie.

>>14786011
too obvious here

>>14788939
When you have faced personal attacks in evasion of what you present for nearly seven years then you can talk.

>>14788975
>7 years
Wow you have no life I bet ur a virgin too.

>>14789001
Fuck you and your ad hominem you stinking cunt.

>>14789060
I had sex with ur wife.

>>14789271
Well the explains why you are a fucking mindless zombie now, doesn’t it.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. The world is going to change forever. We are going to be much better at space travel, for example, if we knew what we were fucking doing. We can’t even predict a ball on a string right now.

How fucking stupid!

>>14788881
You really do get off on doubling down.l, don't you.

>>14789286
You are a bot parroting tue same thing over and over again. You are not open minded. And you are a cuckold because I literally had sex with your gf when you had one.

>>14789286
>We can’t even predict a ball on a string right now.
Actually, with all relevant information you can predict it.
You just don't want to the the information.
That is not very scientific.

>>14789352
I can predict it accurately with minimal information and you absolutely cannot predict it at all. You are just making excuses for incompetence.
Zombie.

>>14789349
You are an ignorant zombie who imagines that he can just neglect the evidence.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and no excuse is reasonable. The law is wrong.
If you allowed the bitch to use you and you think that makes you right about. Angular momentum then you are a special kind of stupid.

>>14789343
I am standing up for truth so obviously I stand you absolute idiot fuckinq zombie.

This ridiculous moron keeps repeating the same bullshit over and over but somehow he never stops being funny. Keep it up Johnny, we can always use a good lolcow.

Meds

>>14789563
Fuck you and your ad hominem.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and I do not deserve to be treated badly just because you prefer to remain ignorant. Zombie.

>zombie this
>zombie that
Looks like the resident parrot learned another word. How cute!
Johnny wanna cracker?

mandibular

Brother you need help

>>14789472
I neither said nor implied anything having to do with you standing or not standing.
The fuck is wrong with you?

>>14791140
You said that I am obsessed. That is literally an ad hominem attack and makes you a piece of shit.

Now go fuck yourself yoj cunt

>>14790385
Yes, I need help to get this simple message through because you are too veritaphobic to listen.

Go fuck yourself you piece of Zombie shit.

12000 rpm object falsifies COAM.

Personal insult only highlights that you are a loser.

>>14790226
Go fuck yourself you childish cunt.

12000 rpm falsified COAM and you being a childish stinking cunt will not change the fact.

>>14790347
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

12000 rpm falsifies COAM and you refusing to face facts and insulting the messenger makes you a cunt.

Go fuck yourself cunt.

Bunch of zombies thinking that they are right because there is a bunch of them.
How fucking stupid and ignorant can humans be?
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and crowd ignorance is not a reasonable argument.

>>14791371
No, I didn't.
What the fuck is wrong with you that you don't even read the posts you are replying to.
Here is the post that triggered you
>>14789343
There is nothing in the rules of the internet that prevents anyone from discussing you directly; so no, not an ad hominem attack.
However, you continue getting your jollies from being a lying sack of shit.

>>14791373
>>14791401
>>14791383
>>14791378
>>14791405
>>14789975
>>14789472
>>14789460
>>14789450
>>14789286
>>14788975
>>14788881
>>14788822
>>14788803
>>14788761
You get the picture.
Quoting John:
>Personal insult only highlights that you are a loser.

>>14791412
Responding to cunt behavior by pointing out that the person is being a cunt. Is not me making an ad hominem attack because it is impossible to commit ad hominem against a person who is evading the argument.

Like you are evading the argument right now by shooting the messenger.

Cunt

>>14791405
The rules of an ad hominem attack is that you attack the messenger instead of the argument. Like you are incessantly doing because you are a cunt.

>>14791419
the only one being a cunt is (you) though. People have kindly pointed out over and over why you are wrong and all you can do is respond with personal attacks, red herrings, and gish gallop nonsense.

And now he is losing his shit as usual. He probably forgot to take his meds again.

>>14791441
Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM and stop irrationally attacking the messenger.

>>14791438
There are. I people here. There are only a bunch of zombies telling me that I am wrong because my maths is right.

>>14791419
Sorry but no, insulting others is just that, insulting others.
One can certainly "pointing out that the person is being a cunt" WITHOUT insults, being a cunt.
Arguments change, you dumb fuck.
And see, you end with an insult, proving you are a liar.

>>14791452
I. = no

No people. Only a bunch of zombies neglecting the evidence and personally attacking the messenger.

>>14791421
the argument is that you are a lying sack of shit.
the posts are on target.

>>14791452
>>14791459
the NPC projects as naturally as it seethes

>>14791441
I doubt he is here at all. mandelbaur-trolling is trivial - which should worry the real Mandelbaur - and that's what we see here.

>>14791455
Fuck you and your evasive shit.
You are incapable of facing the truth so you attack me and then when I tell your to fuck off, you think that justifies your cunt behavior.

12000 rpm falsified COAM.

You think that you can give me advice on how to get you to listen to what you are shit scared to face?

>>14791462
Stop personally attacking me and face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM. Like a reasonable person if you don’t like being called a cunt then stop being a cunt.

>>14791460
Yes, you are a lying sack of evasive shit.
That is why you are desperately evading the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

Chicken shit.

Test

>>14791465
What you see here is anything else other than the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and that is because you are shit scared of the truth.

>>14791469
you hold no command over me, I don't have to obey you.
For a card-carrying member of Mensa you are one dumb lying sack of shit.

What the fuck is up with that rambling last sentence of yours?

>>14791471
Don't make personal attacks if you don't want people to respond in kind, you retarded NPC.

>>14791471
We are just following the example set by the adult here.

>>14791483
Why are you afraid to face the fact that COAM is false?

>>14791475
You have a sever reading comprehension issue.
perhaps that is the reason your paper is rejected everywhere.

>>14791486
People feel personally attacked by the fact that COAM is false.

>>14791493
Nope. My paper being rejected without review is a reading comprehension problem of humanity being inacapable of facing the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14791489
No, I'm waiting for that moment the truth hits you like a sledgehammer.
Start streaming your daily life, the ads would pay for a decent service.

>>14791488
Nope. You are following the example of a cunt who refuses to face the facts and attacks the author.

>>14791499
The truth is that a ball on a string does not do 12000 rpm.

When is that going to hit you?

>>14791498
No, as previously mentioned you have to send the paper to relevant journals.
You don't own the journals so you don't have any say about what they consider relevant content.

Remember when John admitted that the moon's velocity is not constant and therefore "angular energy" is not conserved?

>>14791503
A properly executed demonstration doesn't involve getting hit by the ball, so, never.

>>14791501
Since you are the one that declared you were an example of an adult you just confirmed that you are a cunt.
congratulations on being self-aware.

>>14791501
Mandlbaur everyone hates you. Literally everyone. Why don't you kill yourself? You will make everyone happy if you do.

>>14791508
Nah, he'll insist that it's okay for him to behave like that, just like he makes exceptions for everything else when it benefits him.

>>14791506
No, but when I asked if he was an example of an adult whose behavior should follow, he said he was.
Shame that thread got trimmed.

>>14791512
No doubt that there are larpers but damn if "john" isn't a textbook example of a hypocrite.

All of you are afraid of the truth.

How is it possible that I can show you the prediction of COAM being 12000 rpm and this only triggers personal attacks?

>>14791542
Let us know when you figure it out. You can write a paper on it. The psych journals could use a laugh.

>>14791588
How am I supposed to “figure out” your insane behavior?

I literally calculate the existing physics and show you that it is stupidly wrong and you personally attack me.

The only one who can “figure” that out or even begin to explain your unreasonable behavior is you.

>>14791591
You are not taking into account friction, air resistance and stuff like that. COAM happens in this idealized scenario, not in an open system experiment. The examples given for undergrads are just to give an idea of COAM

>>14791591
If "everyone" is insane, that's a major breakthrough in the field of psychology. Don't you want to be a part of a historic breakthrough?

>>14791591
>>14791618
E.g., a ball rolling on the ground will eventually stop. Does this contradict conservation of linear momentum?

>>14791622
The fact that there is mass psychosis is a very good psychological study opportunity.
It is not however a “breakthrough”.
The historical breakthrough is the fact that angular momentum is not conserved. But like Galileo and Copernicus, the breakthrough is made long before it is generally accepted and the discoverer must first face long term persecution.

>>14791626
If the prediction of conservation of momentum was that the ball would within a second come to a halt and then return in the opposite direction going ten times faster, then the fact that it gently comes to a stop because of the existence of friction which nobody is denying, would falsify the law.

>>14791637
Friction prevents 12000 rpm, glad you are moving on

>>14791637
>If the prediction of conservation of momentum was that the ball would within a second come to a halt and then return in the opposite direction going ten times faster
...conservation of momentum doesn't say that at all, wtf?

>>14791643
Nope. “Friction” is not a reasonable explanation for the missing ten thousand percent increase in energy.

That is what absurd means. Zombie.

>>14791651
Yes. That is why the law is not false.

COAM, however does say 12000 rpm and demands that there must be a ten thousand percent increase in energy.

So it is falsified.

Zombie.

>>14791663
COAM doesn't say anything at all about an open system, retard.

>>14791671
COAM says that a ball on a string demonstration will do 12000 rpm.

That is by the book.

Delusional Zombie.

>>14791678
Not in an open system, retard. Textbook examples assume a closed system

>>14791663
Is your argument that if COAM holds then energy conservation would be violated? Because that is false

>>14791706
No. My argument is that if COAM holds then a ball on a string would do 12000 rpm, zombie.

>>14791694
It is irrelevant if it is a “closed system” zombie.
COAM does not require a “closed system”.
COAM only requires no torque.

See example 4 at 27:45 for a professional explanation as to why a ball on a string should obey the law and stop trying to shift the goalposts because that is unreasonable behavior.

Grow up.

>>14791716
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

>>14791712
So why did you talk about energy increase?
COAM is a consequence of Newtons laws, are you suggesting Newton laws are wrong?

>>14791716
No, it is not. Conservation laws are not valid in open systems, in general

>>14791725
So your argument is that a ball on a string does do 12000 rpm?

You are doing what is called an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

To me it seems that you argue that ball on a string does do 12000 rpm.

Is that reasonable?

>>14791735
Bullshit. Prof young along with thousands of physicists throughout history that used the demonstration says you are a liar.

Why do you have to lie?

>>14791749
Actually any physics professor would agree that you are an uninformed idiot who lies and blurts nonsense.
You are wrong for reasons that you are too stupid, arrogant, and clueless to understand but you are wrong nevertheless. This is also why you are stuck in this shithole serving no other purpose than giving us folks a laugh or two.

>>14792107
Actually any physics professor agrees that my maths is 100% correct. They just abandon rationality and refuse to accept the conclusion.
Fuck you zombie.

>>14791506
I don't remember him saying so at all. what he said was that the Moon only appears to move faster when it is closer to Earth precisely because it is closer to Earth. apparently no one caught up with this trivial possibility. I wonder if he denies Moon landings, too, because they would have been extremely difficult if all astronomers are as incompetent as he thinks. would be par for the course.

>>14792126
You are not completely fucking stupid.
The moon motion part you understood.

Why the fuck would you accuse me of denying the moon landing but recognize that others are in denial about the velocity of the moon?

Are you fucking mental?

>>14792139
you are not Mandelbaur. he would have to deny Moon landings because if the Moon moves as he posits and nobody realized that, again as he posits, then NASA would have missed the Moon by thousands of kilometers at least.

>>14792158
It is difficult to miss something that is massive and in your face, retard.

Also you need to go an look up our failures as far as the moon goes because the prior two landings before the last, embarrassingly crashed into it.

Zombie.

>>14785255
I'm a physicist and I'm telling you that it's 100% wrong.

>>14792173
Well you are a lying piece of shit physicist
Which equation number are you contesting, you lying piece of shit?

>>14792177
A monkey can use a tool.
That doesn't mean it will suddenly build a code compliant house.
You are not smarter than that monkey.
You lying sack of shit.

>>14792177
Proving again that he doesn't have the slightest clue how any of this works.

Seems written for Mandlbaur

>>14792222
At least I am not ignorant like you and I accept that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

You are the lying sack of shit. You cannot falsify my maths. So claiming it wrong is a straight out lie.

>>14792224
A mathematical physics paper works like this : if you cannot falsify the maths then you can just insult the author instead, right?

>>14792231
Mandlbaur was a member of Mensa, so you are clearly mistaken, delusional zombie.

>>14784014
Actually I found a flaw with your thought experiment.

So you start swinging the ball around on the string. Like you say, to get your Ducati engine you just need to shorten the length of the string. The problem is: the force required to shorten the string enough for 12000 rpm is about the horse power of a Ducati engine, you can’t just do it for free with your bare arms.

>>14792254
Excellent, so you agree that physics is wrong then. Thank you.

>>14792257
Do physicists today not account for the force you would need to shorten the string in their theory of coam?

>>14792259
As you have shown, when you account for it, it is absurd, so physics is wrong. That is how a reductio ad absurdum works you zombie.

If you think the prediction of theory is impossible, which is exactly what you are saying, then you agree that the theory is wrong.

>>14792275
Well I agree with you that getting the 12000 rpm by humanly pulling on the string of a ball going around on a string is wrong. It’s just that I think physicists theories already account for this, I.e. I think physicists already agree with your demonstration. The ball on a string rotating around creates a centrifugal force pointing outward from the ball and string, so when you start pulling on the string then you would be pulling against this force, which will increase as the rpm increases. Very soon that outward force will be more than you can pull against, much sooner than before the ball reaches 12000 rpm.

>>14792289
I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say.
It sounds like your argument is that since we can show that the the theory predicts impossible things, the theory is right?
Is that what you are trying to say?

>>14792298
No I am saying that your thought experiment is correct but I think the theory physicists teach agrees with you already, I think you misunderstand what physicists say about coam

>>14792405
There is nothing to misunderstand about 12000 rpm. It does not happen in reality, so the “law” of conservation of angular momentum is wrong.
Stop being so unreasonable and thinking so wishfully.
Face the simple and obvious fact that COAM is false.
Instead of this insane denial.

>>14792239
Monkey boy watch out for the pox.

>>14792239
Liar liar pants on fire.
I have shown your map to be wrong. You once again lie about what others have posted.
Burn motherfucker burn.

12000 rpm simply and obviously objectively falsifies the “law” of conservation of angular momentum.

12000rpm obviously objectively falsifies John's Mensa card.

No John 12000 rpm doesn't falsify shit and you are just too stupid and ignorant to understand why despite having had it explained to you to painstaking details a thousand times.

>>14792634
12000 rpm absolutely and objectively falsifies COAM.

Either show us the 12000 rpm, or accept the fact.

This insane denial behavior is stupid.

>>14792710
Shows "us" who? You are literally the only moron on Earth who thinks this is a reasonable request.

I repeat: the reasons why your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on have been explained to you a thousands of times and you just turned out to be too delusional, stubborn, dumb, and clueless to understand. This doesn't make you any less wrong, retard. Now take your meds and fuck off.

>>14792254
this is just wrong.

>>14792830
12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM no matter how much you are in denial of it and no matter how much you personally insult me.

>>14792916
Nope it doesn't. No matter how much you repeat this nonsense it is still bullshit produced by your delusional, confused, uninformed brain.

>>14793105
Nope. 12000 rpm objectively and obviously falsifies COAM.

Your denial is stupid behavior.

>>14793237
12000rpm obviously objectively falsifies your Mensa card.

>>14793237
You clearly don't know the meaning of the word "objectively". Let's show you an example of how to use it correctly: "John Mandlbaur is objectively a deluded moron who babbles nonsense about physics without knowing as much as fuck all about it."

>>14792126
That's what he said at first, but when it was pointed out how the moon MUST have a greater /orbital/ velocity (aka tangential velocity) when it's closer to avoid inevitably spiraling into the Earth (see >>14787788), he backpedaled as shown in >>14791506

>>14793237
If angular momentum is not conserved then when you push a wagon away it would just stop.

>>14793562
I have never backpedaled. I told you straight that your appeal to tradition logical fallacy is stupid. Behavior.

You being in denial does not justify lying.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM.

>>14793267
12000 rpm is an objectively wrong prediction. Every rational person who has ever observed a ball on a string demonstration will strongly agree.
You are in denial and behaving irrationally.

>>14794104
>I have never backpedaled
Actually, you have, see >>14791506.
Stop lying and face the fact that the moon objectively falsifies COAE.

>>14794108
Every rational person understands that a ball and string is not a closed system and therefore cannot falsify reality.

>>14794153
Reality is not a closed system.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14794137
You making up lies is not me backpedaling. It is simply you making up lies.
12000!rpm objectively falsifies COAM nonmatter how many lies you make up.

>>14794054
So you are arguing literally that physics is wrong because momentum is not conserved. Zombie

>>14793259
That is the dumbest zombie thing I have ever heard. Grow the fuck up and face the objective fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM. Zombie.

>>14792530
Five year old mentality zombie.

>>14792521
Are you threatening me you piece of shit zombie.

FUCK YOU.

>>14794215
You can lie but you can't change the fact that you did indeed backpedal because the moon objectively falsifies COAE.

>>14791518
To be a hypocrite one has to contradict oneself. Since I have always maintained the same position, I am not a hypocrite. You claiming to be a scientist and then neglecting the evidence that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM, is hypocritical.

>>14791513
Fuck you and your irrelevant ad hominem you piece of shit.

>>14794242
>To be a hypocrite one has to contradict oneself.
Everything you say contradicts everything else you say. So yes, I'm glad we can agree that you are a hypocrite.

>>14791509
The fact that people hate me just because they don’t like to be faced with the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, is reason for me to push forward with more vigor because I am obviously right.

>>14794250
People hate you because you're an obnoxious idiot and you couldn't win a debate with the village idiot let alone reality itself.

>>14791508
I >>14787817
Fuvk you and your ad hominem you piece of evasive shit.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

No matter how much you lie and insult me.

Go fuck yourselves

>>14787819
Fuck your and your childish made up stupid shit bullying behavior.

Fuck off.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

Face the fact and stop being a weaseling cunt.

>>14787823
Except that the rotational energy remains constant if you actually measure the results instead of imagining them.

>>14787825
Fuck you and your stupid delusional claims and insults.

Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM like an adult.

>>14787836
FUCK YOU AND YOUR DISGUSTING AD HOMINEM YOU piece of STINKING CUNT.

>>14787839
The mentally ill person is the one who is told that COAM predicts 12000 rpm and agrees that it is objectively wrong, but they still imagine that the theory is right.

>>14787849
Any student who is shown that a ball on a string “spins faster” is accepting that 12000 rpm is the result.

Which is wrong.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14794267
>the rotational energy remains constant
Actually it doesn't. I accept your concession.
As a parting gift, I will leave you with a GIF of Halley's comet, which whizzes by at a relative velocity of 70.56 km/s but slows down to a mere 0.91 km/s when it's furthest from the sun.

>>14794280
The mentally ill person is the idiot who keeps going back to the same refuted argument a million times as if it changes the fact that a ball and string is not a closed system. Fuck off and dilate, tranny.

>>14785695
FUCK YOU YOU PIECE OF STINKING AD HOMINEM SHIT.

>>14785696
The fact that you neglect the evidence does not justify claiming that the person presenting it is not a person.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR EVASIVE SHIT.

>>14794294
not an argument

>>14794296
you have yet to produce any evidence of your claim that momentum is not conserved in a closed system, retard.

>>14785702
The mental illness is to be faced with 12000 rpm and acknowledge that 12000 rpm is objectively wrong for the example, but refuse to accept that the theory which makes the prediction of 12000 rpm is wrong.

You are mentally I’ll and objectively so.

>>14785807
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YIU STINKING CUNT.

>>14794305
not an argument

>>14785917
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU STINKING PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14794226
>zombie
>Grow the fuck up
Well, why don't you?

>>14794232
In what way was that a threat?
The pox is real, dipshit.

>>14787744
Stop being a childish making up shit bully. Fuck you.

>>14787763
FUCK YOU AND YOUR LYING MADE UP AD HOMINEM EVASION YOU STINKING PIECE OF SHIT.

>>14794242
You don't behave as the adult you claim to be and push for others to behave as, by your own admission.
Yes, you have always maintained that same position.
And there you go again, lying. I've never claimed to be a scientist.

>>14794323
Denying the truth doesn't change the fact that you're a lying sack of shit, lying sack of shit.

>>14787767
Fuck you.

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

What the fuck is wrong with you.

Zombie

>>14794244
It speaks to your character, which is relevant to discussions about your character.
So, ipso facto, it is relevant.

>>14787770I ignore nothing. You are so fucking desperately weaseling that you are prepared to go back to something he said last year in a totally different context to try and evade the actual fact that he states clearly that a ball on a string should obey COAM as physicists have claimed for decades and is stated clearly in my reference work.

What the fuck is wrong with you mental case.

>>14794260
Shit man, like every other post you put up contains lies.
You lie about what you've posted in the past.
You lie about what others have posted.
You are just a big liar.
Your open posting history is enough for any journal to toss your paper into the recycle bin.

>>14794263
But the video IS objectively available.
Once again, you lie about what has been posted.
Your constant lies are the real weasel here.

>>14787771
FUCK YOU AND YOUR DISGUSTING AD HOMINEM YIU STINKING CUNT.

FACE THE FACT THAT 12000RPM FALSIFIES COAM LIKE A FUCKING GROWN UP.

>>14794269
Do you think paying attention to the video is "stupid delusional claims and insults"?
You keep using words in ways that show you don't know what they mean.

>>14794338
The video is available and it supports me you lying fuck.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Face it like a grown up

>>14794348
The video refutes your claim that you've watched it.

>>14794336
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. You saying “liar” does not change that simple fact.

Zombie.

Grow up.

>>14794350
Stop lying, retard. No one is willing to debate liars like (you).

>>14794331
Any discussion about my character is evasive ad hominem and speaks to the fact that you are a stinking piece of shit.

Grow up and face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM and stop insulting the messenger like a cunt.

>>14794323
Do you not realize that what you post doesn't go away?

>>14794328
>like a grown up
My but aren't you a prime example.
Lead on, monkey boy.

>>14794327
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

That is not a lie.

You claiming it is a lie is just personal attack in evasion.

Your behavior is disgusting.

Grow up and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14794335
Shit, you are saying that what the professor says in his video that you claim as example 4 is a "totally different context"?
Damn, the more you post the more stupid you become.

>>14794360
>12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.
>
>That is not a lie.
But it is a lie, because you know damn well that a ball and string is not a closed system.
Stop lying.

>>14794352
I'm following you example of how to behave as a grown up.
There is nothing evasive about discussing your character, you lying sack of shit.

>>14794325
You are clearly not a scientists ass. You are just an ignorant moron with a false belief and a stinking shitty attitude of prejudice.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

No matter how much you insult me in evasion with this shitty slander.

12000 rpm is wrong so COAM is wrong.

Grow up and stop the stupid.

>>14794370
>Grow up and stop the stupid.
Maybe follow your own advice, mmkay?

>>14794315
Threatening me with it is stinking shitty behavior. Fuck off zombie.

12000 rpm falsifies COAM and that is not my fault.

>>14794374
No one threatened you, schizo.

>>14794312
I have already faced the fact that COAM is false.

It is you who is in denial

>>14794308
I don’t need any argument against your stupid childish shit. Fuck you and your stinking cunt.

>>14794381
Clearly you haven't faced the facts, because COAM is true and a ball and string is irrelevant.

>>14794384
not an argument

>>14794301
My claim is that angular momentum is not conserved and your only evidence “confirming “ COAM is that things “spin faster”. Fuck you you hypocrite.

>>14794370
Yes, clearly, I'm not a scientists ass.

>prejudice
you clearly don't know what that means.

>>14794298
Childish stupid shit does not need any argument. FUCK YOU AND YOUR STINKING CUNT.

Grow up

>>14794388
Things spin EXPONENTIALLY faster, as predicted by COAM, unless of course you deliberately manipulate the results by stipulating that you're only allowed to put energy in as fast as it's leaking out (muh yanking!!!1!)

>>14794291
The mentally ill person is the one claiming that a centuries old mainstream demonstration is wrong because you are literally arguing that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong.

>>14794394
not an argument

>>14794289
Your simulation is as scientific as measurement of the acceleration of the flint stone car from the cartoon directly.

Go fuck yourselves you deluded zombie

>>14794257
People hate me because they cannot win.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14794249
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and there is no contradiction in that.

You being in denial means that reality contradicts your beliefs.

Zombie

>>14794397
It is a physics 101 demonstration you dipshit.
You want to win the internet?
Show us another physics 101 theoretical that doesn't exist in the real world. Show us a demonstration of a perfectly inelastic collision between two frictionless balls. You know, those first physics problems students are introduced with.
That shit is high-school level physics.

>>14794239
The moon confirms COAE.

You refusing to measure does not support your false beliefs.

Zombie

>>14794413
A physics 101 demonstration which falsifies COAM.

>>14794417
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg

>>14794399
Go fuck yourselves child.
You saying “ not an argument “ does not change the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>14794408
The only place you have ever won is in your own mind, retard.
Nobody cares about your retarded red herring.

>>14794396
The LabRat confirms COAE.

Zombie.

You refusing to measure without manipulating is mentally deficient

>>14794414
When did the moon crash into the earth? After all, COAE predicts the moon can't complete a single orbit.
I can't believe soientists missed such a major, catastrophic event.

>>14794389
I know what prejudice means. It means that no matter how obvious the facts are, you have already decided that I am wrong and are neglecting the facts.

>>14794424
Stop lying, lab rat confirmed that COAM is true and that your only counterargument is imposing arbitrary stipulations that have nothing to do with real physics.

>>14794387
Fuck yoj child

12000 rpm = COAM false.

>>14794429
/I/ have not decided that you're wrong, John. It is reality itself that has decided that.

>>14794385
So COAM is true despite the fact that the evidence contradicts the “law”?

>>14794413
that should be an "elastic collision".
See, John, you don't even read posts to catch stupid mistakes.

>>14794380
You did you evasive cunt. Go fuck yourselves

>>14794434
not an argument

>>14794421
You saying “12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM “ does not change the fact that 12000 rpm objectively verifies COAM.

>>14794373
I have already faced the fact that COAM is false. It is you in denial of the evidence and behaving like a tantrum child.

12000 rpm = COAM false

>>14794440
You have presented NO evidence whatsoever that angular momentum is not conserved in a closed system. So yes, COAM is true and I accept your concession.

>>14794429
>neglecting the facts
I've neglected no facts.
You, being the consummate liar that you are, have repeatedly stated that you neglect facts.

>>14794369
Discussing my character when I present a proof is the definition of ad hominem. Zombie.

>>14794448
you haven't faced the fact that you forgot to demonstrate COAM being false in an actual closed system, which is the baseline requirement if you want to overturn established physics.

>>14794444
No, he didn't.
Neither did the other anon.

>>14794451
1. an argument from incredulity is not a proof.
2. still not an ad hominem, since you have repeatedly lied and lying instantly eliminates your credibility.

>>14794367
COAM does not state anything about a closed system only “no torque” and a ball on a string demonstration is mainstream and has been for decades.

Your behavior is called shifting the goalposts.

Ie. You are unreasonable.

Grow up and face facts

>>14794451
No, discussing your character is simply discussing your character.
This may come as a surprise to you but there are more discussions happening on this Earth than your COAM spam. You don't have a monopoly on discussions.

>>14794366
He says that it is an example of COAM. You are trying to deny what he said.

>>14794458
>COAM does not state anything about a closed system
yes it does, liar
>only “no torque”
Exactly, a closed system with no external torques such as friction or wobble. I accept your concession.

>>14794359
I have presented a proof that COAM is false. Please face up to it instead of calling me names and neglecting it?

>>14794354
I don’t care how much you can point out the times when I have described your literal behavior.

The fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM is not going away.

Zombie

>>14794465
He says that pulling on the string does not change the momentum. Which is true--no matter how hard you pull on the string, it will not increase the ball's angular momentum.
He does not say there are no external torques, regardless of what the voices in your head are telling you he said.

>>14794465
No, but you have denied everything else he says in the video AND took his statement about torque out of context, purposefully too. So, that makes you a liar about what the professor stated by means of omission.
Context, monkey boy, context. The video is openly available and clear as day that you didn't pay attention.

>>14794351
I tell the truth. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

>>14794467
You have presented no such proofs.

>>14794349
The video confirms that COAM is false because the example clearly does not do 12000 rpm.

>>14794346
Paying attention to the video requires that you accept COAM is false because it does not do 12000 rpm.

>>14794480
>big number, can't be right!
nobody cares about your flat earth bullshit, retard

>>14794338
The video does not show 12000 rpm, so COAM is false.

>>14794467
>neglecting it
Liar.
I've not neglected your paper at all.
I've pointed out how page 195 of your references contains sufficient information to show that the very premise of your paper is false.
I've shown how you purposefully ignore your own video evidence.
I've shown your hypocrisy in accepting a simple demonstration but denying an actual experiment, from the same professor
So, liar, just because you don't like the replies doesn't mean I have not addressed your paper.

>>14794490
No, you have made a fake claim about pagd195 and are literally neglecting my paper

>>14794470
Did you even read your replies before posting?

>>14794486
Reductio ad absurdum has been accepted logical argument since the time of Aristotle. You are makjng up shit.

Face facts and stop evading

>>14794480
by your own paper the initial velocity would have to be 2rps.
was it 2rps?
Additionally, by your own paper the radius would have to be reduces to 10% of the original.
Was it reduced by that exact ration?
No and No.

>>14794479
Yes I have.
This mathematical physics paper is undefeated.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

>>14794485
Fuck man, do you even recall what you have claimed in your paper?

>>14794472
His statement was that there is no torque in the ball on a string demonstration. If that is “out of context” then you are delusional.

>>14794495
My 'claim' is about a specific sentence in on page 195.
That sentence exists whether or want it to or not.
Verifying your references is literally reviewing your paper.

>>14794471
He directly says “zero torque” and then follows up his claim by stating clearly “we have an example of COAM”.

That is what I said. That is what he does.

You are delusional.

COAM is false. Stop deluding yourself

>>14794515
He is referring to the act of pulling on the string, idiot. Obviously there are torques, otherwise the ball would still be spinning to this day.

>>14794466
Nope. COAM only requires no torque. That is why prof Young stated very clearly that “we have an example of COAM “ immediately after showing that there is no torque.

Stop your delusions.

COAM is false.

>>14794500
The most important part of "reductio ad absurdium" is demonstrating that something is absurd. You failed to do that, ever, so your non-argument is invalid.

>>14794464
No. Discussing my character is evading my proof.

>>14794504
I don't see any proofs that COAM is false, only an argument from incredulity, which is flat earth nonsense.

>>14794457
Reductio ad absurdum is not arguing from incredulity.

Your refusal to acknowledge that 12000 rpm is objectively wrong, is an argument from incredulity.

>>14794523
First, you have no proofs to evade, and second, it is completely valid to discuss your character when your poor character undermines your trustworthiness.

>>14794455
Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM instead of supporting shitty evasion

>>14794525
>Reductio ad absurdum is not arguing from incredulity.
It is when you have failed to demonstrate that 12000 rpm is actually absurd and that a frictionless, wobble-free ball and string wouldn't spin at 12000 rpm (assuming the string doesn't snap because uSiNg KeVlAr Is ChEaTiNg.)

>>14794453
I showed using existing the physics example that existing physics is wrong.

>>14794510
No, that is not what he said.
Maybe next time turn on Captions and attempt to read what he is saying, and you clearly don't understand what you are hearing.