/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14851772
Undoubtedly your best work yet.

>>14851772
This is Nobel prize worthy. Good job!

>>14851780
Wait to see my paper on why bananas can't possibly exist in Euclidian space.

>>14851772
i don't follow

>>14851785
Not a good time and place to shitpost mate, this thread will be capped and stored as a piece of scientific history. Congrats on making it on the books with your retard banana joke. (for the record, it is in fact possible to represent a banana in Euclidean space, this can be experimentally verified by putting an arbitrary banana in a physical box that approximates a Euclidean space.)

>>14851772
> work done
what work? there's no gravity

>>14851787
So far, I have discovered that angular momentum is not conserved and then, because nobody listens to that, have falsified the product rule for the cross product, Newton’s second law, the light has no mass assumption and now this.

>>14851804
No gravity required for work to be done retard.

>>14851804
gravity is a magnet, and magnets cant do work dipshit

>>14851772
What is the work being done, chemical reaction of propellent, potential energy into kinetic

>>14851907
>No acceleration required for the product of mass times acceleration times displacement retard

>>14851939
The rocket provides the acceleration you idiot.

>>14851929
Work is force times distance moron. Are you seriously having difficulty comprehending my paper?

>>14851772
Doctor Mandlbong, when can we expect to see your papers formatted with the appropriate number of anime maids?

>>14851969
The reason you resort to slander is because you are the loser.

>>14851982
What's slanderous about anime maids?

>>14851969
aren't you the anime dragon maid poster? post your free-licensed anime maids to help johnny format his paper

>>14851987
It is unreasonable when faced with a physics paper.

Why are you behaving like a tantrum child?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

GROW UP.

>>14851772
i read it and its like reading a shitpost

>>14851999
What's unreasonable about putting anime maids in your paper? Take a look at the attached figure and tell me with a straight face that she would make your paper look less cool or make it less interesting.

You might be a world leading physicist, but you have no concept of aesthetics. You may not like it, you may even disagree, but putting big titty maids in your paper is peak science.

>>14852012
Why does it have to be nonhuman u sick fucking moron

>>14852020
If you want a human maid I've got those too.

>>14851772
>divides distance by instantaneous speed for some reason
>says the units are in watts because who gives a fuck about units
>therefore all of physics is wrong
>refuses to elaborate
Based

>>14851772
Let's say for sake of argument you're right. So what? What are the consequences?

>>14851772
This is what Aristotelians actually believe.

>>14852228
This is just a bunch of made up lies.

I have used the correct units.

That is what “joule” means you retard.

>>14852241
The consequences are first and most important, that you are wrong.

>>14852012
I am not a physicist and don’t insult me you ugly annoying bitch.

>>14852398
You know what I mean, man. What are the consequences of your new discovery? What testable predictions does it make?

>>14852407
You are evading the fact that you are wrong by trying to minimize a very obvious stupid mistake that we should not be teaching at all.
What is the purpose of teaching stupid shit to people?

>>14852400
>I am not a physicist
This is apparent from you ideas, demeanor, and untreated mental illness.

>>14852428
This is ad hominem evasion of my paper.

Stop abandoning rationality and behaving like a piece of shit.

Address my paper or fuck off.

>>14852432
Nobody wants to read your paper, because it doesn't have any anime maids in it.

>>14852435
Address my paper or fuck off this is harassment now.
What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>14852439
Complaining about a lack of anime maids on your paper is addressing your paper directly. It's calling out a glaring, obvious deficiency.

You can be mad about it, or you can correct the mistake and add some anime maids.

>>14852424
You think experimental verification is a mistake and shouldn't be taught anymore?

I though you were doing physics, not sociology?

>>14852457
I think that teaching something that has been shown to be stupidly wrong is totally fucking stupid.
Address my paper or fuck off.

>>14852475
What makes experimental verification "stupidly wrong"?

>>14852424
I'm not evading it! I said let's take your conclusion as read. What comes next?

>>14852482
And I said that you are evading my paper by trying to minimize the consequences which is literally insane because it is the consequences that scare the shit out of you, clearly.
Address my paper.

>>14852478
Experimental verification is not stupidly wrong. Misinterpreting the experiment and refusing to consider the possibility that you are wrong is what is stupid.

>>14852490
I ACCEPT YOUR PAPER. Please tell me what testable prediction arises from your conclusion.

>>14852492
So you accept that the work energy principle is wrong.
The testable prediction is that every basic physics book ever written in history needs to be updated to reflect the truth.

>>14852490
Asking for predictions based on the premise of your paper is addressing your paper directly, you fat African retard.

The last four words of my previous sentence were a genuine ad hominem attack. Learn the difference between that and someone addressing your paper, you fucking rage clown.

>>14852495
That's not a prediction, John.

Fascinating! So there's no relation whatsoever between the work done on an object and its change in energy?

>>14851960
nobody considers "work" in modern science, that's like 500 years old concept

You seem to think that a uniformly accelerating object has uniform energy gain per time. You are wrong.

>>14851772
>Mandlbaur rediscovers the Oberth effect (kind of)
I'm actually genuinely impressed. Energy/work is still conserved because the propellent has kinetic energy too and the rocket's exhaust velocity is constant. So one kg of propellent being fired out of a stationary rocket at 10 m/s is given E=(1/2)mv^2=50 J of kinetic energy. But if the rocket's moving at 100 m/s already then it already has E=(1/2)1(100^2)=5,000 J of kinetic energy. Firing it out of the rocket at 10 m/s makes its relative speed to the Earth 90 m/s, so it has E=(1/2)(1)(90^2)=4,050 J. So the propellent's kinetic energy is REDUCED by 950 J, rather than being increased by 50 J. What that means is that, since energy is conserved, an extra 900 J of kinetic energy can be imparted to the rocket when moving at 100 m/s for every one kg of propellent.

So yes, there is more work done on the rocket while it's moving faster and that is consistent with conservation of energy.

>>14852768
I have never said anything about the energy gain. I have shown that the work done is 20 time greater for the same energy expenditure. Is this difficult to understand.

>>14852760
Irrelevant grasping at straws nonsense. It must be deleted from the physics books because it is wrong. That Makes my discovery a watershed moment in history.

Are you mentally challenged?

>>14852519
Yes it is and not only that but is is simple and obvious fact.

You must be in some really strand kind of denial or mentality challenged.

Which is it?

>>14852749
If the mass starts at rest, then it appears to correlate obviously there is a reason we made the mistake in the first place.

But yes. No actual useable correlation exists.

>>14852786
20 times the work down does not correlate to the same rocket firing for the same amount of time in energy.

Mindless Zombie

>>14851772
based

>>14852786
This is literally total delusional bullshit. A rocket firing the same amount of propellant for the same period uses that same amount of energy irrelevant of how fast it is moving. You are literally delusional.

tbf a few anime maids couldnt really hurt anything could it? A few nazi ones if it isnt too much trouble

>>14851772
>The energy spent by the rocket in the two instances must be the same.

>>14853306
So you think that the same rocket firing for the same period of time can use 20 times the energy if the rocket is moving with respect to earth?
You are literally a mental case.

>>14853279
Stop childishly harassing me please?

>>14853311
you have also to take into account the kinetic energy of the propellant, and you'll see that the amount of kinetic energy of the rocket+propellant is the same both in the inertial system of the rocket and that of the earth

>>14853316
i meant the variation* in kinetic energy, whoops

doesn't have to be maids, but a pic like this one wouldn't hurt

>>14851906
>So far, I have discovered that angular momentum is not conserved and then, because nobody listens to that, have falsified the product rule for the cross product, Newton’s second law, the light has no mass assumption and now this.


Keep it up!

The most important rule is not to go out like Semmelweis, Bruno, Galileo, etc...

The establishment is evil and they deserve no apology or goodwill. It is entire fair to fight back against their corrupt bullshit by all means necessary. History has already shown that they will destroy men like you, in bad faith, if given the chance.

>>14853338
Thank you for the support.
I do not think that they are intentionally evil though. They are suffering psychosis.
A scientist wants to understand the truth actually, but cannot see it when blinded by bias. I don’t know how to get through the bias, but social proof must be a major factor.

>>14853316
No, I do not. I am simply pointing out that the discrepancy is massive compared to the fixed output from the rocket. You are trying to excuse a twenty times increase in energy by saying there is a little loss of energy from the 50 joule rocket of 1050 joules which makes up the difference of 950 joules which is insane.

>>14853334
Stop childishly harassing me please?

>>14853345
you can't ignore the kinetic energy of the propellant, since the rocket accelerates exactly by pushing downards the propellant, which then exerts a reaction upwards force on the rocket, by the action-reaction principle. if you calculate the increase in kinetic energy of the system rocket+propellant you will find that it is equal in both cases.

Always knew physics was made up speculative garbage, it's not about our real world, physishits through their speculations have created this platonic image world, where their physics holds true.

>>14851790
dude, you need help. pls go see a priest or a good cognitive behavioral therapist. this shit isn't healthy for you

>>14853347
Nobody is harassing you Mandlballs. You came and posted your own research to a public forum for discussion.

We're peer reviewing your paper and the consensus is that it needs anime girls on it, possibly maids.

>>14853347
you posted here faggot. the toll is cutie animu grils. pay it or fuck off

>>14853272
You are, "work" is known to be useless with modern science knowledge, it was softly erased and not used anymore, literally "everyone" discredited this long time before you, lol.

>>14853347
just saying a cute anime girl would help with your research paper taken more seriously.

>>14853277
>A rocket firing the same amount of propellant for the same period uses that same amount of energy irrelevant of how fast it is moving.
This is what we thought was the case in the 16th century

John, I just e-mailed you. Did you receive it? It's about the wager

>>14853484
Well it is still true now you weasel. Address my paper.

>>14853479
Please stop harassing me with childish evasive nonsense?
Address my paper.

>>14853472
It is still being taught you insane moron.

>>14853452
Stop the childish harassment
Address the argument in my paper or go away.
I did not invite you to this thread you annoying asshole. If you don’t like then don’t fucking look at it you psychopath.

>>14853450
You are evading my paper and harassing me.

Is that reasonable behavior?

Address the argument presented in my paper.

wut an interesing thread

>>14853575
Ad hominem

>>14853575
>still true
not according to the textbook you cited in your paper

>>14853428
You can’t ignore a 20 fold increase in work and explain that by your strawman logical fallacy evasion. Address my paper.

>>14853591
You are incomprehensible.
Do you even have a clue what you are talking about?
This ladies and gentleman is some kind of bot literally designed to waste my time.

>>14853589
Address my paper.

John, I don't really see what point are you trying to make here. You didn't even mention the mass of the rocket or computed its kinetic energy so I don't see how you can claim anything about the work-energy theorem here. Perhaps you should elaborate a bit more because as it is currently presented it just doesn't follow.

>>14853599
Spam Paper, nee Fogwit
∞ Imbecile Avenue,
Bonkerstown, C**T 1234
United Schizos

>>14853597
Do I really have to spoonfeed you.
This statement of yours:
>A rocket firing the same amount of propellant for the same period uses that same amount of energy irrelevant of how fast it is moving. You are literally delusional.
Is directly contradicted by your own source via the pic I posted, which in fact claims that the closer the speed gets to c, the more kinetic energy is required

>>14853606
My paper makes the point very clearly and concisely and undeniably.

You are conflating experimental physics concepts with a theoretical physics paper.

Muddying the water logical fallacy is pseudoscience.

Show false premiss or illogic or accept the conclusion.

>>14853623
You cannot defeat my paper by contradicting the conclusion because that is a formal logic fallacy.

You have to show false premiss or illogic, or accept the conclusion.

Yoi cannot defeat my paper using insults because that is ad hominem logical fallacy.

You have to address the argument by showing false premiss or illogic or you have to accept the conclusion.

Claiming that a rocket can make twenty times the energy because it is moving is literally insane.

Address my paper

>>14853622
Stop the childish playground bully behavior and grow up and address my paper. Please?

>>14853638
The false premiss is that the source you cited confirms relativistic asymptoticity of kinetic energy, which you've contradicted here: A rocket firing the same amount of propellant for the same period uses that same amount of energy irrelevant of how fast it is moving. You are literally delusional.

>>14853648
You are not a human being. You are program designed to harass me.
Is this reasonable behavior for a human to take?

To design a program just for the single purpose of harassing some random victim is psychotic behavior.

What's next on your hit list king?

>>14853657
I am not a king. I am a victim of vicious harassment.
Address this paper please?

>>14853661
>Dumb fuck can't even take a compliment you're no better than an AI. You programmatically launch into attack mode on every post you see regardless of its content. Dr. Anon's diagnosis: your brain is broken and needs to be corrected via autoerotic asphyxiation.

>>14853661
>Address this paper please?
OK, the part where you say "constant thrust and constant efficiency engine" is contradictory, because the faster you're going, the more energy it takes to produce constant thrust. You start from the very beginning with a false premise, from which you can derive anything.

>>14853672
No, I do not believe that it is contradicting.
You are trying to claim that the rocket has 20 times the energy when it is moving because it is more efficient. That is literally insane grasping at straws behavior.

Address my paper reasonably.

>>14853687
>No, I do not believe that it is contradicting.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. Prove its possible to have such an engine without assuming it is. (You won't)

>You are trying to claim that the rocket has 20 times the energy when it is moving because it is more efficient.
No, read my post again. I'm saying that in order to maintain constant thrust it needs more and more energy. But then it is not constantly efficient, it becomes less efficient the faster it goes. Your own source says this. Why are you citing a source that disproves your premise?

>>14853717
Yes, exactly and my paper shows that there is ten times more energy when it has a little bit of speed so my proof still stands and you are just saying some nonsense and neglecting my paper.

Please stop being evasive and address my paper.

>>14851772
Im really trying to understand your paper but I just don't. Can you show the equations w/calculations instead of words?

>divides 100 meters per second ([math]m s^{-1}[/math]) by five meters ([math]m[/math])
>gets 20 in units of [math]s^{-1}[/math] aka hertz
>"it is joules"
>will not explain
alpha mail

>>14853718
>my paper shows
Everything in your paper is derived from a false premise (as your own source shows and you haven't disputed), so talking about what your paper "shows" is a non sequitur. Anything can be shown from a false premise. Prove such a rocket can exist first. Any further post in which you fail to do so will be taken as a concession that you can't and that your paper is disproven.

>>14853721
I show the calculations in my paper with numbers. 100/5 is 20 times the fucking energy, midwit.

>>14853728
speed divided by distance gets you energy? hm no i dont think it does

>>14853726
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Do you just. Say a bunch of denigrating words and neglect any evidence you like.

I am not here to waste my time with totally closed minded “AAARGH YOU WRONG” mindless fucking zombies. My argument makes it very clear that the work / energy principle is stupidly wrong.
You are in some really irrational denial.

>>14853728
100 what divide by 5 what? I don't understand. But yes you are correct that 100 divide by 5 is 20 and I applaud your intellect for figuring that out.

>>14853723
Are you high, or do you always talk incomprehensible nonsense out your ass?

>>14853732
OK, so you did not prove your premise is possible or even dispute your own source which says its impossible. Thanks for admitting your paper is disproven.

/thread

>>14853735
the 100 corresponds to the speed of his rocket, and the 5m is a distance it traveled over
but dividing them doesn't correspond to energy at all lmao

>>14853735
If you are incapable of comprehending very simple mathematics, then you are either stupid or ignorant.
Which is it ?

>>14853737
My paper is not disproven by you grasping at irrelevant straws and neglecting it. Retard.

>>14853740
why would the energy of a rocket be [math]\frac{speed}{distance}[/math]?

>>14853741
Another post on which you fail to show your premise is possible. Thanks for again admitting your paper is disproven. No further confirmations are necessary. Thank you.

/thread

>>14853631
>My paper makes the point very clearly and concisely and undeniably.
It certainly doesn't. It is not even clear what quantities you are computing or comparing, using what formulas. As currently presented the message is incomprehensible.

>You are conflating experimental physics concepts with a theoretical physics paper.
Nobody mentioned anything experimental. That you are trying to present a theoretical case is probably the only thing that was actually clear.

>Muddying the water logical fallacy is pseudoscience.
Refusing to elaborate when the criticism is that your message is not understandable is unprofessional and quite unproductive.

>Show false premiss or illogic or accept the conclusion.
I didn't even contest your result: it is not even clear what you are trying to say.

>>14853739
100 /s in one second makes how many ?
Distance directly corresponds to work retard.
Stop being an evasive ignorant zombie and address the argument.

>>14853746
There is no need for further posts, OP has admitted his paper is disproven:

>>14853726
>>14853732

>>14853742
Work is speed over distance and if the work energy principle is correct they should be equal, because that is the work energy principle, retard.

>Work is speed over distance
>Work is speed over distance
>Work is speed over distance

>>14853746
What is 100 divided by a second? Is it just a place holder for a second number you haven't mentioned yet? What is the other number?

>>14853743
You have not falsified the premiss.
You have made a fake accusation that the premiss is contradicting.
Fuck off you evasive dishonest weasel.

>>14853751
what are the units of work?

>>14853739
>the 100 corresponds to the speed of his rocket, and the 5m is a distance it traveled over
>but dividing them doesn't correspond to energy at all lmao
Way would you expect 100 m/s divided by 5 m to correspond to the energy of the rocket? That doesn't even work dimensionally as it gives a frequency(?): (100 m/s) / (5 m) = 20 Hz ???

>>14853745
Well you are too retarded to point out any error directly but you are trying to claim one which makes you a dishonest piece of shit. Fuck off you stinking cunt.

>>14853757
yeah that's what i said earlier >>14853723
but then again "Work is speed over distance" lol
so if you're using the wrong definition of work then i guess it check out

>>14853750
There is no need for further posts because my paper clearly cannot be defeated when people are forced to resort to literal ad hominem attack.

This is Socrates slander which means you admit you are the loser.

>>14853751
>Work is speed over distance

>>Work is speed over distance
>>>Work is speed over distance
>Work is speed over distance

>>14853758
>Well you are too retarded to point out any error directly but you are trying to claim one which makes you a dishonest piece of shit. Fuck off you stinking cunt.
Please point out exactly where in my comment did I point out an "error" or claimed your conclusion is wrong.
I am claiming that it is not even clear what your conclusion exactly is and how you reach it. You need to fix that before we can even come to the point of whether it's right or wrong.

>>14853753
Typos happen. Sorry.
The point is that the distance determines the work.

>>14853755
>You have not falsified the premiss.
Your own source falsifies your premise. You still haven't disputed this.

And thanks again for admitting your paper is disproven.

>>14853768
you're not mandelburg

>>14853762
Sorry - typo. The point is that that distance determines the work.

>>14853763
Your paper was defeated and you had no response, just whining. You admit your paper is disproven.

/thread

>>14853768
So all the calculations in your paper are "typos?"

>>14853764

Sorry. Typo. The point is that the work is directly determined by the distance.

>>14853768
>The point is that the distance determines the work.
Are we talking about this?
[math]
W = F \cdot s
[/math]
How does it relate to this?
[math]
\frac{v}{s} = \frac{100\textrm{ m/s}}{5\textrm{ m}} = 20\textrm{ Hz}
[/math]
Please explain.

[math]\text{ }^{\color{#511da7}{\displaystyle\text{w}}}\text{ }^{^{^{\color{#4136c0}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3e56cd}{\displaystyle\text{a}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#4274cd}{\displaystyle\text{t}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#4b8dc1}{\displaystyle\text{'}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#57a0ad}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#66ae94}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#78b67c}{\displaystyle\text{u}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#8ebb66}{\displaystyle\text{p}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#a5bd55}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#bbbb48}{\displaystyle\text{b}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#cfb440}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#dea53b}{\displaystyle\text{t}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e58e36}{\displaystyle\text{c}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e56e30}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{\color{#df4828}{\displaystyle\text{e}}}}}\text{ }^{\color{#da2121}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}[/math]

>>14853765
Sorry. Typo. The point is that the work is directly determined by the distance.

>>14853757
Yes as it is clearly explained in my paper, if your pea brain was capable of induction, that for any oscillation there exists a proportionate mass equivalent to its frequency and thus by the mass-energy equivalency, any oscillating body of even null mass contains some principle mass.

>>14853766
No. You are literally saying a few denigrating words and totally neglecting the argument being made because you are afraid to face the truth.
That is how muddying the water logical fallacy works.
You are literally evading the evidence like a flat earther evades evidence of sphere.

>>14853780
Oh no the bot has broken

>>14853769
No. It does not. You making up nonsense is pseudoscience.

>>14853777
So all the calculations in your paper are "typos?"

>>14853771
Yes , my name is John Mandlbaur. I am the first to admit when shown wrong. Always. You are the one having difficulty facing the truth.

>>14853789
It does, it says that the faster you are going, the more energy you need to accelerate.

And thanks for again admitting your paper is disproven.

>>14853783
You may consult my paper on light having mass if you have any doubts about my statement here.

>>14853773
My paper cannot be defeated by you denigrating and neglecting it.

Delusional zombie.

>>14853783
>that for any oscillation there exists a proportionate mass equivalent to its frequency
Please provide a reference backing up this bizarre, unheard of claim.

>>14853791
>I am the first to admit when shown wrong.
We can see that, since you admitted the paper is wrong as soon as someone pointed out your premise is impossible.

>>14853795
Right, it can be defeated simply by asking you to show your premise is possible and you failing to do so.

Thanks for again admitting it's disproven

>>14853781
So all the calculations in your paper are "typos?"

>>14853786
>No. You are literally saying a few denigrating words and totally neglecting the argument being made because you are afraid to face the truth.
>That is how muddying the water logical fallacy works.
>You are literally evading the evidence like a flat earther evades evidence of sphere.
I take this as an admission that your accusation of me pointing out an error was indeed baseless.
Now if you want to elaborate on your argument in a way that is intelligible I am all ears. If you instead prefer to stick with the current incomprehensible version that will be for sure ignored by everybody, be my guest for all I care.

>>14853778
The rocket puts out the same force and does much more distance in the second example so the work done is literally twenty times more but the energy cannot possibly be twenty times more, so the work does not equate to the energy.
The work energy principle is falsified.

>>14853783
>>14853796
A simple application of de broglie equation will show you how stupid you are.

>>14853783
This is now a robot making up random shit and impersonating me.

Please stop this torturing the opponent and face the evidence.

What the fuck is wrong with you you fucking psychopaths.

>>14853790
No. I made a typo in a post here.
If there is any typos in my paper then you might have a reasonable argument instead of this shitty evasive stinking ad hominem. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>14853805
This is now a robot thats trying to torture me be impersonating me with accusations that I am not me. Please end this mindless psychological violence against me and address my paper.

>>14853802
>The rocket puts out the same force and does much more distance in the second example
Slow down... what second example? Please define the first and second examples clearly: I don't see two examples in your paper. Honestly I don't even see one: I just see numbers combined together according to godknows what equations. You'll need to explain your reasoning way more clearly than this.

>>14853792
That does not even begin to address my paper you fucking delusional idiot.

>>14853797
Please stop the childish playground bullying behavior and address the argument in my paper?

>>14853804
>A simple application of de broglie equation will show you how stupid you are.
Please explain with your words what you think the de Broglie equation means.

>>14853798
No. It you have to prove a contradiction before you claim one. This is just dishonest evasion

>>14853800
Fuck off with you bullshit. Have you never made any fucking typing error in any post you ever made before you childish cunt.

>>14853811
100/5 is 20/second which is the hertz obviously. Use de broglies equation and Einstein mass energy equivalence and clearly you can see the work done.

>>14853801
Fuck your and your childish playground bully behavior. Why are you harassing me you stinking piece of shit. I did not invite you here so FUCK OFF.

>>14853811
There are two examples given in my paper to be calculated.
If you cannot even understand that then why are we even talking?

>>14853802
>but the energy cannot possibly be twenty times more
It's kinetic energy is twenty times more, because it's moving 20 times faster.

>The work energy principle is falsified.
Please state the "work-energy principle" and cite your source.

>>14853814
I am John Mandlbaur and I have never said anything about debroglie.

>>14853824
The work done by the force over a second is also twenty times more. Which is the point.

>>14853828
So you're saying the work done on the rocket is equal to it's change in kinetic energy. That's the work-energy theorem. lmao

>>14853831
Nope. I am saying that the work done does not correlate with the energy spent on the system.

>>14853815
>It you have to prove a contradiction before you claim one.
Your own source did that. Hello, is anyone in there?

You again failed to prove your premise is possible. Thanks for admitting your paper is disproven.

>>14853813
I did address it, your premise is wrong. So far you have done zero to argue against that.

>>14853817
If you can't even type, why are we even talking?

>>14853841
You saying my premiss is wrong does not make it wrong.

>>14853844
Well then fuck off and stop talking to me you cunt. I did not invite you here. What the fuck are you wasting my time for?

>>14853840
Nope. My source did not do anything of the sort. Which premiss can be falsified by you showing random unrelated nonsense?
Grow up and stop behaving like a tantrum child.

>>14853839
You haven't calculated anything about the system. You would need to take into account the displacement of the propellant. Dumbass.

>>14853852
>My source did not do anything of the sort.
It did, it shows that the faster you're moving, the more energy you need to accelerate. You've failed time and time again to address this. Thanks for admitting your paper is disproven.

>>14853847
You did actually

>>14853845
Right, your own source saying it's wrong disproves it.

>>14853853
No. I am presenting a theoretical physics paper using a hypothetical rocket.

I do not have to calculate realistic values for “propellant” you are evading the argument. Conflating engineering concepts with theoretical physics is unreasonable behavior.

Please address my argument and stop evading it.

>>14853862
My source does not say that and you imagining vaguely related but actually unrelated concepts as if they apply to my premiss somehow, is insane.

>>14853871
>>14853857

>>14853885
Which premiss does that contradict you circular fucking retard?

>>14853819
>100/5 is 20/second which is the hertz obviously. Use de broglies equation and Einstein mass energy equivalence and clearly you can see the work done.
I see the problem now: you have absolutely no idea what the de Broglie equation means.

>>14853821
>Fuck your and your childish playground bully behavior. Why are you harassing me you stinking piece of shit. I did not invite you here so FUCK OFF.
This is a public space. If you cannot handle criticism simply refrain from posting your bullshit here.

>>14853901
Address my paper and not the person who impersonates me please ?

Your argument is literally ad hominem evasion of my paper despite talking to an impersonator.

>>14853906
I can handle criticism. I cannot handle shitty insulting disgusting slander that I am trying to stop by being more disgusting.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU STINKING BITCH.

Address my paper or fuck off.

>>14853823
>There are two examples given in my paper to be calculated.
Wait. Are you saying the two examples are these?
1) The rocket covers 5m in one second
2) The rocket covers 100m in one second

>If you cannot even understand that then why are we even talking?
If you cannot explain your ideas clearly it is entirely your fault and your problem because people will just go "meh, whatever".

>>14853826
>I am John Mandlbaur and I have never said anything about debroglie.
I was indeed under the impression that it was weird for you to exploit a result of quantum mechanics considering you think it's all bullshit.
Apologies, it is sometimes difficult to tell you apart from your impersonators.

>>14853907
>Address my paper and not the person who impersonates me please ?
I am trying but your message is extremely convoluted.

>>14853913
>I can handle criticism.
Sure. You've got a spectacular track-record at that. LOL.

>>14853655
So were you lying when you said that acceleration requires the same kinetic energy irrespective of initial speed?

>>14853732
In the mind of a schizo: someone faulting your basic premise equates to "AAARGH YOU WRONG"

>>14853586
I think you are having trouble understanding the proper science publication format. You seem good at physics, but bad at typesetting.

Instead of arguing abstractly, I went ahead and fixed the formatting (see attached figure) so you can look at a concrete example put in practice. Notice how much better the paper looks now.

The majority of responses to this post will positive, even though it is exactly the same science as in your paper. I will probably also get hit with many requests to do your light paper next.

The difference is the superior science maid formatting. Be careful when you pick out your maids though. Maids with boobs smaller than DDD are unfit for most science publications.

You can be mad that your science publication format is obsoleted, or you can embrace the future and put big titty anime maids in every margin of your paper.

The choice is yours, Dr. Mandlmaid.

>>14853921
HE IS NOT JOHN MANDLEBAUR. If you bothered to read my paper in another thread you would have seen my proof that photons have mass. I DO NOT think quantum mechanics is B.S. and in fact heavily do rely on it for my proof that light HAS mass. Most quantum physicists and any physicists in general are completely unable to come to terms with this fact however.

>>14853976
He is john mandlbaur
he literally said that's his name

>>14853979
Quit trolling me and address my paper.

>>14853976
but QM relies on massless light and conserved angular momentum according to johnny

>>14853982
quit #harrassing john

>>14853982
Address my paper >>14853968

>>14853987
Address the argument in my paper you weaseling fucking retard.

>>14853964
I never said that.

>>14854009
"A rocket firing the same amount of propellant for the same period uses that same amount of energy irrelevant of how fast it is moving. You are literally delusional."

>>14853921
Well I don’t know what I can do about this behavior of people. What the hell?

>>14853924
There is nothing convoluted in the paper. I agree it can be improved but the measure is very clear.

>>14854015
In what ways can it be improved?

>>14853926
I have addressed and defeated every criticism I have ever faced, most of them in this document: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

Slander and personal insults offend me.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM.

ADDRESS MY PAPER.

>>14854017
>I have addressed and defeated every criticism I have ever faced
If you repeat it enough times it might become true

>>14853917
Excellent, so my paper makes the examples clear then.

>>14854019
Please see rebuttal 6: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

Now address my paper or fuck off.

>>14854017
Why do you never reply to my e-mails? Are you scared?

>>14854016
Address the argument in my paper, or fuck off. You weaseling dishonest piece of shit.

>>14854022
>Rebuttal 6: have addressed and defeated every argument you or anyone else has ever presented against any of my papers or rebuttals

Like I said, if you keep repeating it enough time it might become true

>>14854023
I have developed a talent of knowing when I am being spoofed with fake emails.

Address my paper or fuck off.

>>14854028
Rebuttal 6 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

Maybe if you hear it enough you will eventually listen you fucking ignorant cunt.

>>14853576
a cute anime girl would make your points much more valid.

>>14854017
The first item in your rebuttal:
>1) My papers are properly formatted professionally

Is obviously wrong, as a nice anon incontrovertably proved here:
>>14853968

I didn't bother to read beyond that because your rebuttals are also formatted incorrectly.

>>14854029
So if I keep telling you that light has mass you'll believe me?

>>14854029
So you are scared after all

>>14854038
Scared to offend innocent people who you are spoofing????

No.

I am kind.

>>14853976
>I DO NOT think quantum mechanics is B.S.
Everybody who is familiar with the real John Madumbaur knows that he does think quantum mechanics is all bullshit because COAM and shit.

>>14854070
Angular momentum is conserved

>>14854020
>Excellent, so my paper makes the examples clear then.
It took some 4-5 iterations of discussing it directly with the author so it definitely doesn't. Good news is it should be rather easy for you to fix that part based on this exchange.

>>14853865
John, a rocket moves by displacing propellant and conserving the system's momentum. If the energy of the propellant is negligible then the rocket would never launch in the first place.

>>14854020
>Excellent, so my paper makes the examples clear then.

Your paper doesn't make anything clear because you formatted it wrong.

>>14854020
>Excellent, so my paper makes the examples clear then.
We've already agreed in previous threads that your joke of a middle school lab report isn't a theoretical physics paper

>>14853984
I am rewriting quantum mechanics using hooke's law and protons that have mass. It's extremely simple but will have profound results. It will connect gravity with quantum mechanics.

>>14854150
But protons do have mass

>>14854153
Yes obviously. Your reading comprehension skills are quite lacking.

>>14854158
Protons have mass even in the standard model, brainlet

>>14854160
No they don't idiot. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>14854170
I think you mean photon
Kek what a turbo brainlet

>>14854174
No I explicitly stated proton. Protons have mass. Dear god what is wrong with the people on this supposedly smart board. You're all just a bunch of morons.

>>14854029
Wtf is that reply retard? So you're saying you assumed that guy's e-mails to "be fake" and therefore ignored it?

>>14854150
ads/cft already shows string theory is right. Please off yourself

>>14854177
Because it's inconceivable that someone clueless enough to think that the SM has massless protons would say anything about "rewriting quantum mechanics"
Literal schoolboys know that protons and neutrons are approximately 1 atomic unit of mass

>>14854170
>No they don't idiot

>>14854204
>>14854202
>approximately 1 atomic unit of mass
okay just make up some fake bullshit and try to sell it as if its something anyone knows. I know your games idiot. I wrote them.
>ads/cft... string theory is right.
HA! in your wildest dreams. String theory will never be correct. It will just be over fit until eventually the string theorists who sat there dreaming of nothing useful off themselves for realizing how much time they've wasted and finally a new and useful theory like mine comes out and remolds our understanding of reality completely.

>>14854216
You’re a complete parrot. You "hate" modern physics because you associate it with an obscene caricature which lives rent-free in your minuscule head. Try learning something on your own instead of reading Sabine PopSci books and repeating mindlessly. AdS/CFT shows that string theory and QFT are so connected to one another that they are basically the same thing, and even in experimental particle physics, there have been string techniques applied for making predictions (QGP and others). The fact is that if you are studying QCD or the standard model (real physics) it has been demonstrated that string theory has a real connection. Just because two theories are dual to one another does not mean the simpler one is real and the more complicated one is vetoed by Popper shit. Mathematically there are real connections and that opens a whole 'nother toolkit for making experimental predictions. Just because you and some internet bloggers don’t appreciate that this connection is there doesn’t mean all the top experts are wrong and the whole study of this new toolbox should stop. On the contrary, buttblasted bloggers like you should be a prime example of how self-identified “smart internet commentators” can be completely ignorant of obvious things that show how ST is definitely opening new doors even on “ordinary” physics

>>14854213
Oh wow look at that, the biproduct of computational errors manifest. None of that shit's real and if you think so you're dreaming. WAKE UP

>>14854216
>as if its something anyone knows.
Thanks for verifying that you don't even know basic high school physics

>>14854225
>computational errors
Do you know what THEORETICAL physics is?

>>14854224
good post

>>14854226
I took high school physics and let me tell you, they never for a moment mentioned any of the bullshit you are spewing.

>>14854233
>I took high school physics
And nothing else, clearly

>>14854228
Hurr durr look mommy these lines on the computer are actually the universe based on all of my over fit models and my circular argument machine that tells me what I told it to tell me.

>>14851906
Don't forget that with disproving the conservation of angular momentum that you also disproved half of physics.

>>14851906
my fucking sides. What will you debunk next, Mandlbaum?

But will that rocket ever spin with 12000 rpm in zero gravity thereby violating COAM?

>>14851772
based schizo

>>14853344
>I don’t know how to get through the bias
The first step is to acknowledge your bias.
After that you can start >> to understand the truth actually

>>14854224
You sound like you're projecting heavily. I doubt you have any clue what you're talking about. The majority of your post was nothing but painting a caricature of some obscure moron who is obsessed with mindless science media yet you sit hear spouting gospel in the exact manner you anticipate I would. I would have respected your argument had you kept it bound within the topic but obviously you're a butt blasted soientist who chugs the koolaid straight from the packet. I never spoke anything of the complexity vs the simplicity of a model in correlation with their correctness but you felt it necessary to elucidate me on that "matter of fact." You're obsessed with delusions.

>>14854252
I have won.

>>14854261
You started the argument off with it so in doing so you forfeited the battle before it even started. Checkmate smoothie. Better luck next time.

>>14854224
kek based

>>14851906
>falsified the product rule for the cross product
I'm extremely curious, link to your paper?

>>14854263
Not the person you were arguing with. I just jumped in because you started babbling stereotypical brainlet non-sense about string theory. Try reading Polchinski's book, in the very least.

>>14854233
You can literally look up "standard model mass of proton" and you'll be proven wrong

>>14854285
Reading isn't my specialty, does it have pretty pictures? I'm seriously. If I can't visualize it it might as well be one big paperbound schizo post.

/sci/ needs to know: When the hell does Mandelbrot sleep?

>>14854294
>implying mandibular isn't the perfect embodiment of your average /sci/ shitposter and that all his responses aren't the ramblings of the collective

>>14854293
Many pictures. You may want to check out Baez's "Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity" for a nice visual introduction to differential geometry in physics

>>14854283
What am I proving wrong exactly? That protons have mass? I never implied they didn't.

>>14854312
Ah, the Mandlebrain. That makes the most sense. I accept this as true.

>>14854339
No they don't? >>14854170

Wtf is this thread.
Have you physic-fags ever considered making more rigorous statements so as to avoid the confusions?

>>14854386
U first.

>>14854371
Go ahead and show me the part of the standard model that says protons have mass because I've ACTUALLY looked and nothing in that vomit of a model gives protons an explicitly defined mass. BTW, it can't. We can infer a mass but no expicite argument exists. So don't sit here and try playing games with me about this.

>>14854394
I don't know physics well enough to do that, even though most people here don't either.
Also the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

>>14854386
It's a fucking schizo thread, mathcel. Not to mention, math is a branch of physics. More specifically, it can be seen as a branch of empirical ATQFT. I recommend Landau-Lifshitz - An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory as a basic introduction and Sakurai - Algebraic Geometry of Black Holes to get a better physical feel for the deeper empiricism involved. After that, you can easily read Shankar, Lurie - An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theories which contains a deep empirical proof of the cobordism hypothesis using nothing but our innate child-like physical intuitions. While these so-called "mathematicians" still can't provide proof of their homotopy "hypothesis". It's laughable.
Modern string theory is just a branch of empirical TQFT. It's better to start with that so he can get to the physical proof of the cobordism hypothesis as soon as possible.

>>14854370
>the mandlebrain
This is genius. I cant want for an /mbg/ mandlebrain general. It will be the battleground science has needed. The dawn of a new era is upon us.

>>14854410
Too many physics books. I'll probably give a look in the first two though.

>>14854410
Have you read all those or were you just intending to post a bateman monologue.

>>14854418
Be the change you want to see in the world!

>>14854404
>>14854213

These are the masses of quarks according to SM (regardless of whether you think they're computational errors or not, this is what the model purports) and a proton is combination of 3 quarks

>>14853780
long post is long

>>14854278
I’ve read it, it’s literally
>d/dt (A x B) is d/dt (ABsinθ) not (dA/dt x B + A x dB/dt)
If you show him the derivation in Cartesian coordinates or ask him what θ is in the context of a cross product he gets super angry and accuses you of oppressing him.

>>14854278
Not him, but here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361388725_The_product_rule_cross_product_disparity

>>14854812
Jesus Christ, he's literally retarded.

>>14853311
>hurt durr what is acceleration

>>14853479
LMAO based animeposter. Continue to push mandlbrawl to his limits and maybe he'll be back to sanity.

>>14853751
>work is speed over distance.

Oh come on, /sci/.

>>14853891
>constant thrust, constant efficiency

You don't even need to read the paper. The title gives away that it's not worth reading.
"thought experiments" can't prove or falsify anything. Only real experiments can.

>>14854410
Based physics enjoyer. I always see you here on /sci/. I recognize you with your schizo yet informative monologues.

>>14854410
>Lurie - An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theories
I haven't seen this book, is it new? You mean Jacob Lurie right? I've only seen his expository article on topological field theories and it hasn't been updated in a while. I know a postdoctoral student that was a PhD student of Lurie and find his work interesting.

>>14854707
This guy is too good to be true.

>>14854410
>Not to mention, math is a branch of physics.
brainlet award of the day goes to

>>14853472
>"work" is known to be useless with modern science knowledge
based

>>14855156
>implying math existed before physics
Take the rope pill anon, you'd be doing us all a favor.

>>14855017
Well you claim is non sequitur because the article you point to does not contradict the premiss in any way whatsoever. You must be one of those insane fantasy thinking zombies.

>>14855010
Jesus Christ you guys are fucking ad hominem nutcases. I made tiny little error that is obviously an error and does not even affec my the argument I am making and you nutters obsess forever about it. Fuck off you ignorant asshole.

>>14854995
So you support harassment of people who have different thoughts to yourself?

>>14854989
Address my paper you weaseling chickenshit evasive weak ass moron.

>>14854929
Address the paper otherwise you are literally the flat earth behavior retard. Idiot.

I see your point OP, although it is presented very badly. What you are noticing is that if you accelerate an object with a constant force the power (i.e. the rate at which work is produced) steadly increases. This has nothing to do with the work-energy theorem that says nothing about power. I understand that you might be assuming that the power is constant but there is actually no reason for this to be the case and in fact it is not. I am sorry but you haven't disproven anything.

>>14854251
Rebuttal 14 : you circular fucking psychotic zombie.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14854196
No. I am saying that it is obvious hothead emails are fake. I get three to five fake emails a day and it becomes obvious after you have replied asking if the email is genuine and the actual owner of the email address responded that he did not write it. Now stop this fucking shitty ad hominem behavior and address my paper ignorant fucking harassing evasive zombie cunt.

>>14855732
What the fuck are you babbling about, retard?

>>14854149
No. You are fantasizing that you can just say “not a paper” and neglect the evidence but in real life, your evasion of evidence is the behavior of a flat earth religious fanatic.

Are you a pseudoscientist?

>>14854102
Fuck off you sexually deranged faggot.

>>14854101
I am talking about a hypothetical rocket that puts out thrust but does not expel propellant. This is theory, not psychosis. Now address the argument and stop the dumbass conflating theoretical physics with engineering bullshit.

Grow the fuck up tantrum child.

>>14855732
>the actual owner of the email address responded that he did not write it
Yeah, I don't buy that. Reply to my e-mail already you fucking cunt.

>>14854087
The fact that you recognize the two examples means that your refusal to recognize the two examples prior was purely down you your personal ignorance.

So go fuck yourself you unnecessarily difficult cunt.

Address my paper now that you have overcome your ignorant zombie mode.

>>14854082
In your imagination only because any measurements made unbiased confirm that COAE is correct and falsify COAM.

Plain stubborn blind faith despite total lack of evidence is religious behavior.

Are you a pseudoscientist ?

>>14855742
I don’t care what you buy you psychotic fucking asshole.

Address my paper or fuck off and stop the psychotic harassment.

>>14855751
Reply to my e-mail, you scared little bitch.

>>14855734
I know what I am talking about and you are insulting me based upon your fantasies you ignorant fuck.

Address my paper or fuck off

Why are you harassing me?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>14855732
>the actual owner of the email address responded that he did not write it
I doubt that

>>14855724
Your fantasy is that the power a rocket outputs can increase twenty fold to make up for the massive discrepancy being pointed out.

That is grasping at straws pseudoscience.

If you see the point then stop being in retarded denial of it.

>>14855732
John, stop harassing physics professors and reply to my e-mail.

>>14855755
Would you like to see the actual Wittens response?

>>14855763
Address my paper or fuck off. Stop harassing me you psychotic fuck.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

John, just go back to fucking reddit. I'm tired of seeing you here.

>>14855765
I'll e-mail him to make sure you're not fabricating any nonsense as usual.

>>14855740
such perfect rocket would generate free energy, since it can accelerate by itself indefinitely, so it would violate physics. if you want to analyze ideal rockets in a theoretical way you still have to take into account the propellant, since pushing propellant down is the way a rocket accelerates upward.

>>14851772
Do you believe in the Electric Universe theory, or find anything about it interesting? (I'm trying to understand your mindset).

>>14851772
I am impressed with your work, what a gem!

>>14855839
by the way OP, we wholeheartedly appreciate your work over at https://s0jak.party/

"gem" is one of the lingos we use over there.

>>14855785
I have discovered by mistake through my research and development, that angular momentum is not conserved.
I have been looking for other false theory to point out because people are psychotic when faced with proof that angular momentum is not conserved, so maybe they can listen to other facts which are not so emotionally challenging for them.
Light has mass seems to generate a lower insult and slander ratio.
Until you started your ad hominem bullshit now but we will see how far you go off the rails.

>>14855774
The point is that the same energy produces twenty times more work which contradicts the work energy principle and your evasive behavior does not change this fact.

>>14855846
>by the way OP, we wholeheartedly appreciate your work over at https://s0jak.party/
I messed up the url, it's https://basedjak.party/

>>14855864
I have won-

>>14855732
Dude why aren't you replying to my e-mail?

>>14855772
Are you upset that your little shitty scam attack failed to antagonize Witten now.

Asshole.

>>14855868
What the fuck are you babbling about, retard? You brought Witten up. I just doubt you received "fake e-mails" from Witten.

>>14855770
Nobody gives a fuck how you feel psycho.

>>14855869
I received fake emails from somebody impersonating Witten who I suspect is you because of your inability to stop yourself talking about emails without reason here because you are so faggot excited about your shitty harassing behavior.

>>14855866
You have “won” by neglecting the argument and personally insulting the author.

RIIIIGHT.

You should book your spot in the mental hospital now, retard.

>>14855864
Your paper boils down to "if there were a perfect rocket which could accelerate by itself, without propellant, then the work-energy principle would be false". Well, so what? A rocket which accelerates itself without propellant is impossible, so your conclusion doesn't apply to reality. In reality, all rockets, even theoretical ones, have to push propellant downards, since the rockets work by the action-reactiom principle, which your "perfect rocket" violates. In conclusion, your reasoning is basically correct, but since the premise of a self-accelerating rocket doesn't apply to reality, neither does the conclusion.

>>14855872
I just want to know why you haven't replied to my e-mails.

>>14855881
I have replied.

>>14855881
Address my paper paper and stop
Harassing me with dishonest bullshit.

>>14855901
Have you checked the spam folder?

>>14855905
FUCK YOU AND YOUR STINKING CUNT ANNOYING EVASIVE SHIT.

Why are you harassing me and others with your stinking spoof emails you psychotic fucking psychopath?

Why don’t you just face the facts like a grown up?

>>14855922
???

>>14855876
No. My argument is that the hypothetical rocket applies the same energy and the work is very different.
So the principle must be wrong.

>>14855924
If you are genuinely not getting a response to my emails then start talking right here and now instead of sending me emails. I think you are just harassing me intentionally and have never sent anything, or you are responsible for the fake emails I received and are having a faggotgasm about it.

>>14855926
Your hypothetical rocket violates the action-reaction principle, so whatever it does, it doesn't apply to reality.

>>14855932
Retard, reply to my e-mails. It's obviously about the wager.

>>14855736
>You are fantasizing that you can just say “not a paper” and neglect the evidence but in real life,
but it is not a paper

>>14855760
>Your fantasy is that the power a rocket outputs can increase twenty fold to make up for the massive discrepancy being pointed out.
You are conflating power and force, a typical novice mistake. Applying a constant force to an accelerating object requires ever increasing power. This is a fact that has been known since the dawn of classical mechanics and it is perfectly consistent with all its laws. I am sorry but you haven't discovered anything new nor have you disproved crap.

>>14855745
>The fact that you recognize the two examples means that your refusal to recognize the two examples prior was purely down you your personal ignorance.
No. It means that the description in your so-called paper is so poor that it takes 4-5 rounds of questions to clarify what the fuck you meant. Your incapability to take responsibility for anything (your piss-poor communication skills in this case) is appalling. You can fuck off forever and go back to being sodomized by a squad of huge-dicked n****s for what I care.

>>14855749
>any measurements made unbiased confirm that COAE is correct and falsify COAM.
Wrong. Just yesterday I measured a ball on a string and it reached 10800 rpm confirming COAM. Actually any ball on a string demonstration if measured correctly comfortably reaches 10000+ rpm.

>>14851772
>>14852495
>>14853275
>>14853313
>All, in the long run, is done with; even Voltaire’s Tragedie could not hold on, and the thing capsized. What has Science not pinned its faith to, and not so very long ago, that to-day lies on the dust-heap? The contrary with works of Art; alter, transform your views and sciences as ye will — there still stands Shakespeare, there Goethe’s Faust, there the Beethoven Symphony, with undiminished power!

>Physics et cetera. bring truths to light against which there is nothing to say, but which also say nothing to us.

>The most crying proof how little the sciences help us, is that the Copernican system has not yet dislodged dear God from heaven, for the great majority of men: here an attempt might haply be made from some other side, to which the God Within might lend his aid! To Him, however, it is quite indifferent how the Church may fret about Copernicus.

>>14855739
You formatted your paper wrong and no amount of childish, directionless rage is going to change that.

>>14856009
Rebuttal 1 and 2 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14855994
No, Thorsten, the 10800 rpm confirms COAE because you conduct the second example in my paper which is predicted by COAM to do 1.2 million rpm.

>>14855991
That is just ridiculous. My paper is about as clear and concise as is possible.
Stop evading my paper like a flat earther evades evidence of sphere.
Address the argument in my paper or fuck off.

>>14855980
Please point out exactly where in my paper is this imaginary conflation you falsely accuse me of you dirty stinking bitch.

>>14855941
It is an argument.
Please address the argument or fuck off you dirty stinking bitch.

>>14855935
I told you I will respond on Monday when I am in the office. Now fuck off.
You have warned me about the next spoof you dumb fucking idiot.

>>14855934
No it does not. Your claims about efficiency are irrelevant to the argument and not large enough to explain a twenty fold discrepancy you evasive fucking idiot.

>>14856105
The action-reaction principle has nothing to do with efficiency. If your rocket doesn't violate the action-reaction principle, please point out where is the downard reaction equal and opposite to the force accelerating the rocket upwards.

>>14856103
So you're scared?

>>14851772
You aren't even mandlbaur, faker. Prove your identity.

>>14856100
See >>14856199

>>14856154
Yes, I am very scared. Asshole. Now fuck off and leave me alone.
Why are you harassing me?

>>14856143
The rocket cannot increase in efficiency until it puts out twenty times more energy just because it is moving, retard.

>>14855765
What'd he say?

>>14856272
Again, I've never mentioned efficiency in my argument, maybe you're mistaking me with someone else in the thread. I'm only saying your rocket violates Newton's third law, since there is no reaction to the upward force acting on the rocket.

>>14856294
He agreed that he did not write the nasty email that appeared to have been sent from him and I then asked him why you have been picking on him and he does not respond.
Why are you picking on him?

>>14856304
Of course there is you idiot. It is just irrelevant to the argument.

>>14856305
I doubt it. Stop harassing him.

>>14856315
Address my paper or fuck off why are you talking about this shit anyway. Are afraid to face my paper?

>>14856316
I'm interested in what he said. You're probably lying, so I want you to post proof.

>>14856318
I am not here to satisfy your ad hominem curiosity you transvestite faggot with a stinking cunt.

Address my paper or fuck off.

>>14856326
So all of this is made-up nonsense. Why not reply to that anon's email?

>>14856328
Address my paper or fuck off.

>>14856308
Where is it then? On what body does it act?

>>14856332
Johnny boy, what did you write to Witten? What did Witten say? Stop being so obtuse.

>>14856335
Address my paper or fuck off

>>14856337
Johnny boy, what did you write to Witten? What did Witten say? Stop being so obtuse.

>>14856333
It is irrelevant to the argument. Do you know what that means, retard?

>>14856340
You didn't answer the question. Until you show the body on which the reaction force acts, your rocket violates Newton's third law.

>>14856344
Stop this muddying the water logical fallacy and face the fact that the same rocket cannot be adding twenty times more energy into the system purely because it is moving so my argument is not affected by your weak and now defeated faggot protest.

>>14856353
Your rocket violates Newton's third law. If it weren't, you'd be able to tell me on what body the reaction force acts.

>>14856355
No. Imagine two rockets in outer space. Normal existing style rocket ships. One already moving and one at rest. The same rocket fires for the same amount of time. But one is doing twenty times more work than the other for the exact same energy input.

Is this really difficult to understand that there is something wrong with this principle?

>>14856363
Do these two rockets use propellant? If not, they violate Newton's third law. If they do use propellant, you have to take into account the kinetic energy and momentum of the propellant too, not only those of the rocket.

>>14856370
Normal rockets. Fire the same amount of propellant for the same time at the same rate. Identical. One does twenty times more work that the other but the energy used or propellant burned is identical. The work energy principle is broken. Face the fact.

>>14856379
Since they use propellant, when comparing the two variations of kinetic energy in the two cases, you have to also take into account the kinetic energy of the propellant for each rocket. If you do, you'll find that the variation of kinetic energy of the system rocket 1+propellant 1 is the same as that of rocket 2+propellant 2. I can show you the calculations if you want.

>>14856390
I am not interested in your nonsensical grasping at straws evasion of my paper moron. Address my paper or fuck off. Show false premiss or illogic or accept the conclusion.

>>14856395
You've lost.

>>14856395
Ok. The error in your paper is that you ignore the kinetic energy of the propellant.

>>14856395
>Show false premiss or illogic
He just did, though.

>>14856390
You are literally trying to claim that the 100 w joules in energy are lost to fuel kinetic energy and subtract that from the five joules the rocket engine is capable of which explains the 95 w joules difference.

Fucking insane zombie.

>>14856398
You have lost.

>>14856403
Do you want me to show you the calculations?

>>14856401
You did not show that my premiss is false in any manner relevant to the argument. You are just making up your own random premiss requirements and claiming the premiss doesn’t meet your random ass requirement.

That is not addressing the argument. That is plain and simple denial and evasion of the argument.

>>14856412
You sure we read the same comment?

>>14856403
It is and you are wrong, end of story

>>14856407
You have not even addressed the argument in the paper. How can you possibly be win by shitting yourself, running away and claiming to be right. Retard.

>>14856415
Meds

>>14856415
He did win

>>14856395
I have won.

>>14856412
You've lost hard.

>>14856408
No. Go and look properly at your calculations and you will recognize that your suggestions is fucking idiotic. Literally idiotic. I have been here before and has the same argument many times over. You are litterally claiming more loss of energy into fuel kinetic energy than the rocket is capable of outputting. It is a stupid argument and I really do not want to waste my time addressing your evasion which only makes you look stupid anyway.

I’d much rather that you started behaving reasonably and considering the evidence rationally instead of desperately denying simple facts.

>>14856413
The propellant is irrelevant to my argument and cannot be explained by you grasping at straws.

There is a twenty times work discrepancy between two examples with the same energy input so the work energy principle is shown to be ridiculous. No matter how much is lost to the propellant. Retard.

>>14856426
I have the calculations right before my eyes and I'm not seeing anything wrong. Wanna take a look?

>>14856434
You've lost.

>>14856426
The math holds, wordcel

>>14856439
You have lost actually but you are also common.

Rebuttal 6: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14856437
Then think about them before you present them moron, because the fact that the numbers match up does. It make them realistic.
Then you can just admit defeat and stop behaving like an idiot.

>>14856443
kek, what is this schizo shit? https://www.researchgate.net/project/Perpetual-Motion-3

>>14856445
>Then think about them
he says he already has. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

>>14856441
We are not discussing maths zombie. We are discussing physics and if the numbers are unrealistic then the maths is wrong.

>>14856447
Physics is a part of math.

>>14856444
Rebuttal 2 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>14856446
If he thinks his numbers are realistic then it is clear that he has not thought about them.

>>14856449
Yes, but physics has to match reality. If it does not then the theory (maths) is wrong.

>>14856444
lmao

>>14856445
I've thought about them and they show an equal variation of kinetic energy for both rocket+propellant systems.

>>14856454
see >>14855996
You are wrong.

>>14856457
Yes, your 5 w joule rocket puts out enough energy that 100 w joules goes into fuel kE and that leaves us the 95 w joules difference of work done on the rocket.
Totally fucking insane.

>>14856462
I'm not using numerical values because I want to be general. I'm simply computing the difference in kinetic energy between the starting moment and the final moment, for both rocket+propellant systems. I also conserve linear momentum since no external forces act on the rocket+propellant system. The end result is that in both cases the the variation in kinetic energy is the same. Unfortunately I can't directly make a comparison with your numerical values, but I can still show you the general calculations if you want.

>>14856471
Well since we are discussing physics, the numbers have to be reasonably applied to reality. Your argument is unreasonable and insane.

>>14856089
>because you conduct the second example in my paper which is predicted by COAM to do 1.2 million rpm.
I am not this Thorsten guy, idiot. I measured a ball on a string going from 1 meter to 10 cm starting from 120 rpm per your specifications and it went straight up to 10800 rpm.

>>14856092
>My paper is about as clear and concise as is possible.
Your paper is abysmally bad like the previous ones and clearly shows that you suck at communication on top of science.

>>14856097
>Please point out exactly where in my paper is this imaginary conflation you falsely accuse me of
You compute the energy expenditure over 1 second (= power) and incorrectly assume that it should be equal beacause the trust (= force) is the same. There's your conflation moron.

>>14856527
Ok, then let's do this: tell me the mass and acceleration of the rockets, the mass of the propellant, and the time interval on which to compute the work. I'll assume the first rocket is at rest, while the second moves at 100 m/s. Each of us plugs in the numerical values you give me into their calculations, then we compare our results. Sounds good?

>>14856565
Where exactly does that happen in my paper you lying making up random shit zombie.

>>14856579
No. I am not interested if you subtract 100 from 5 and get 95 idiot. Your maths is stupid. The rocket uses 5 units of energy to make 100 units of work by subtracting the 95 units that are wasted on propellant energy.

How fucking insane do you have to be to even think to present such bullshit.

>>14856562
Ad hominem is pseudoscience.
Address the argument in my paper or fuck off with your stinking cunt.

>>14856558
Bullshit. Imaginary evidence is not science moron.
The LabRat has measured and confirms my theory perfectly and blindly.

Whatever you measured was not the example.

>>14856582
Look, I made that proposal just so we could have some common ground upon which to make our own calculations and then compare our results. You tell me what values you get for the variation of kinetic energy for the two cases, and I tell you mine, easy peasy. We won't make any progress in this discussion if we use different numerical values. I even offered to show you my calculations to see what part of them you disagreed with, but you deny me even that. All I ask is you give me some parameters of the problem so I can tell you my numerical conclusions.

>>14851772
If they did a single proper google search "rockets conservation of energy violation" they wouldn't look like such retards

>>14856598
The argument is presented in my paper and you are evading my proof and refuse to address it and are desperately trying to make excuses. The fact is that you cannot possibly explain away a twenty fold difference with this grasping at straws nonsense. If you can defeat my paper then present an argument which shows false premiss or illogic. And stop grasping at straws and trying to shift the burden of proof back upon me.

Ignorance is not a scientific argument.

>>14856580
>Where exactly does that happen in my paper you lying making up random shit zombie.
Are you really so stupid that you don't even know what you wrote in your toilet paper? You are computing work done over 1 s, that's power. You are assuming constant trust, that is force. Then you are expecting to get the same value for the former because the latter is assumed constant which is where your wrong conflation happens.

>>14856583
>Ad hominem is pseudoscience.
>Address the argument in my paper or fuck off with your stinking cunt.
Your paper sucks and is wrong. Take your meds and fuck off idiot.

>>14856638
Stop evading my paper using slander because you are simply admitting you are defeated and have no real argument, loser.

>>14856588
>Bullshit. Imaginary evidence is not science moron.
I am presenting evidence and you are ignoring it like a flatearther because you are biased.

>The LabRat has measured and confirms my theory perfectly and blindly.
The LabRat confirms COAM perfectly and always disproves COAE.

>Whatever you measured was not the example.
It was. A 50 g ball starting at 120 rpm pulled in 1 s from 1 m to 10 cm. It finally achieved 10800 rpm. COAM is right and COAE is wrong.

>>14856633
Do you agree that the power of the rocket does not change?

How the fuck can you explain the twenty fold increase in power just because the second example is moving. Does our rocket power output magically grow twenty fold? Fucking blind stupid retard.

>>14856647
You imagine there is evidence, much like a flat earther behaves.

>>14856628
Your error is that you don't take into account the kinetic energy of the propellant. The rocket initially at rest spends energy both to accelerate itself upwards and to accelerate the propellant downards. So does the rocket initially moving at 100 m/s. If you calculate the total energy expenditure for both cases you get the same value. I'd show this more directly, but you'd have to give me some numerical values to work with.

>>14856658
The power of a rocket with constant thrust isn't the same, John. No matter how much you scream and shout and stamp your feet in impotent rage.

You will never be a scientist. You will be forgotten and your "discoveries" will be used as an example of what happens when an untempered ego coupled with a middling intellect is left to roam unchecked.

Thanks for playing.

>>14856666
The energy input is the same for both examples. The identical rocket engine fires for one second. That is the energy input. The work done in the second example is twenty times more than can be achieved by the indentical rocket in the first example. How does the rocket put out twenty times more energy than it is capable of? . Your argument is literally insane.

>>14856669
See you circular moron who is so obsessed that he has to hold discussion in stereo.

>>14856672