“It spins faster” is an idiotic and infantile, unscientific prediction.

[Anonymous No.14603312]

If you measure and ice skater, she conserves angular energy and if you are like the scientists, you will be making excuses until the end of time before you fucking measure. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14603347]

They're refering to the angular velocity which indeed is faster in the second scenario.

[Anonymous No.14603349]

>>14603347
No anon don't reply to the schizo

[Anonymous No.14603350]

Where does the lost angular momentum go?

[Anonymous No.14603359]

>>14603350
There is no lost angular momentum

[Anonymous No.14603368]

>>14603347
Yes, sir, and the increased angular velocity Indicates conservation of angular energy, sir.

[Anonymous No.14603372]

>>14603312

[Anonymous No.14603373]

>>14603349
Because censorship by ignorance is the only option to defeat the truth, sir. We should never ever measure anything in science, sir, for fear of finding out that our religious type beliefs are false.

[Anonymous No.14603377]

>what? you measured? please admit your measurement is fake

[Anonymous No.14603383]

>>14603350
Since angular momentum is not conserved in the first place and that was just a stupid mistake to think so, it does not go anywhere, it is simply not conserved, sir. It changes when the radius changes because it is defined by the radius,sir.

[Anonymous No.14603386]

>>14603377
No, sir, I have measured your best evidence, sir, prof Lewin’s rendition of a prof on a turntable and he conserves angular energy and falsifies COAM , sir. My measurements are true and you are the one who has failed to measure anything and confirm COAM, sir.

[Anonymous No.14603391]

Hey babe, what's your favorite beer? Do you like your beer with COAM or cum?

[Anonymous No.14603393]

>>14603391
Are you some kind of fucking mental case, sir?

[Anonymous No.14603398]

>>14603377
link to video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg

[Anonymous No.14603405]

>>14603393
Babe, answer the question. As for mental case, only one of us has brain damage, babe.

[Anonymous No.14603410]

>>14603398
If the only evidence you can produce is a very obviously amateur video in which then initial measurement is literally “about eight inches” then you are desperately cherry picking nonsense. Grow up and face reality. Weasel. “About eight inches” is not science, it is a two bit hooker boasting about how deep she can throat.

[Anonymous No.14603413]

>>14603405
I am not your “babe” FUCK YOU.

[Anonymous No.14603414]

>>14603413
Please, some decorum babe. How do you prefer your beer? You reject COAM yes?

[Anonymous No.14603426]

>>14603410
I'm sorry babe but are you not a fan of the eight inches? Babe, do you instead prefer the four inches at faster speed? If you violate COAM hard enough you may get cum. Conserved Under Mandlbaur. Would you like that babe?

[Anonymous No.14603444]

>>14603312
Mandlbabe, can you please demonstrate this experiment in the picture? Wear the pink tutu as well.

[Anonymous No.14603446]

>>14603426
Fuck off schizo.

[Anonymous No.14603448]

>>14603444
Fuck you schizo

[Anonymous No.14603452]

>>14603446
>>14603448
Mandlbabe, you are the one with brain damage. Please reconsider. I am helping you, babe. Now that you have falsified COAM you should present CUM. Focus on the four inches, since it appears you really didnt like the inches. Just, understand babe, it comes at the price of higher speed. You can handle it.

[Anonymous No.14603461]

>>14603452
Mental case.

[Anonymous No.14603470]

>>14603359
>>14603383
Why should angular energy be conserved, when energy is a derived quantity, and momentum is fundamental? Things move, they don't energy.

[Anonymous No.14603475]

>>14603470
No, sir, energy is the fundamental conserved quantity and not angular momentum, sir. That is the mistake we have been making, sir.

[Anonymous No.14603476]

>>14603368
Cool, where's the problem.

[Anonymous No.14603483]

>>14603476
The problem is that if angular energy is conserved then that contradicts conservation of angular momentum, sir.

[Anonymous No.14603535]

>>14603483
But angular energy is not conserved in this case. Angular momentum is.

[Anonymous No.14603540]

>>14603475
Holy fuck is this stupid

[Anonymous No.14603608]

>>14603535
No, sir, there is no case where angular momentum is conserved and angular energy not sir.

[Anonymous No.14603617]

>>14603608
Imagine you're spinning with wide open arms and a dumbbell in each hand. As you're spinning, you feel a centrifugal force pulling the weights away from you. Now, how do you reduce the radius of these weights? If you pull slightly they don't move. You have to use energy to move the dumbbells against a force. This this energy is not lost. It's in the system as well.

Are you trying to tell me that an ice scater would not feel a force pulling the dumbbells away from her? Or do you think that energy can just vanish?

[Anonymous No.14603619]

>>14603608
Since this phenomenon is so mechanically simple, have you thought about doing an experiment live ITT sir, with us trusting you to be earnest enough to accurately record your findings?
Your name would end up in the news sir

[Anonymous No.14603623]

>sir
You're sounding like a good little sub, John.

[Anonymous No.14603626]

>>14603617
No, sir, I think that centripetal force cannot affect angular energy, sir.

[Anonymous No.14603629]

>>14603619
Please see my evidence here, sir: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics

[Anonymous No.14603630]

>>14603626
Do you not believe that a force along a path requires work or do you not believe that the ice skater fees a force that makes it difficult for her to reduce the radius?

[Anonymous No.14603652]

>>14603630
I believe that an ice skater conserves angular energy because I have built and tested many experimental prototypes which were effectively mechanical ice skaters, sir , and I know from the results that the theory of COAM is false, sir. I have proven it in my papers, sir.

[Anonymous No.14603663]

>>14603652
Why don't you answer my questions? Is there a force yes or no? Does it require work/energy to move against a force yes or no? If you refuse to answer simple questions when ask, you're not working scientifically.

[Anonymous No.14603954]

>>14603663
No, sir, I am being scientific, sir. The force presents no torque and therefore cannot do work on the angular energy / rotational kinetic energy, sir. Your stubborn insistence that it does, sir, is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and it is false, sir. My paper falsifies it, sir, you cannot present it as evidence against my paper that what my paper falsifies contradicts it, sir. That is not reasonable, sir.

[Anonymous No.14603959]

>>14603954
You are wrong. If you pull the weight closer, the weight describes a spiral trajectory. So part of that central force leads to linear acceleration of the weight.

Your paper proves nothing. You do a simple calculation and then claim that it is impossible. It contains no physical measurement.

If I accelerate with an acceleration of 100m/s^2 for 10 seconds, I will reach a velocity of 1000 m/s, or 3600 km/h, which is really fast. Therefore, v=a*t is wrong.
That's your logic.

[Anonymous No.14603972]

>>14603652
>I have built and tested many experimental prototypes which were effectively mechanical ice skaters, sir , and I know from the results that the theory of COAM is false, sir.
Oh good, so you must have some quantitative experimental data to put this issue to rest once and for all, no? After all, qualitative demonstrations and approximations aren't science as you so elegantly stated in >>14603410

[Anonymous No.14603980]

>>14603312
>she conserves angular energy
you are retarded. Energy is conserved almost like you claim, but it's total energy. you are so retarded you fail to account for any other form of energy. I've told you this 10 times and you fail to comprehend rotational kinetic energy isn't the only form of energy involved. Your "paradox" has an extremely simply solution.

[Anonymous No.14603982]

>>14603652
>I have built and tested many experimental prototypes which were effectively mechanical ice skaters, sir , and I know from the results that the theory of COAM is false, sir. I have proven it in my papers, sir.
Why is the data not in your paper? Where are your figures? What control measurements did you take?

[Anonymous No.14604021]

>>14603312
average schizo who spams the fuck out of /sci/ for fucking YEARS because he has no life and is brain damaged

[Anonymous No.14604063]

>>14604021
Since when is presenting a historical discovery, spam, sir?

[Anonymous No.14604065]

>>14604063
Show your data.

[Anonymous No.14604067]

>>14603982
Is independent confirmation okay for you, sir. Or are you just going to make excuses why then theory is wrong and neglect the evidence like a flat earther, sir?

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

[Anonymous No.14604068]

>>14603980
Measure before you speak, sir. Otherwise you are literally speaking from ignorance, sir.

[Anonymous No.14604071]

>>14603972
I have independent confirmation but scientists make excuses and neglect it.

[Anonymous No.14604073]

>>14603959
You are wrong, sir. Go and measure before you speak, sir.

[Anonymous No.14604082]

>>14604067
Do you honestly assume those lectures are held in a frictionless vacuum?

[Anonymous No.14604089]

>>14604071
>I have independent confirmation
Let's see the data then. I don't understand why this is so difficult?

[Anonymous No.14604094]

>>14604073
Did you measure? No you didn't. You show some YouTube videos and fail do consider 80% of the physics going on in there.

[Anonymous No.14604108]

>>14604068
>Measure before you speak, sir.
what do I have to measure? Do you not believe my claim that more than one form of energy exists?

[Anonymous No.14604155]

>>14603312
It's angular momentum retard. Not energy. Energy isn't conserved in this scenario.

[Anonymous No.14604162]

>>14604155
>Energy isn't conserved in this scenario.
energy is always conserved. the thing is it's total energy. OP denies any other form of energy.

[Anonymous No.14604178]

>>14604155
Angular momentum is not conserved, sir. A ball on a string demonstration does not accelerate like a Ferrari engine, sir. Stop insulting me, please, sir?

[Anonymous No.14604180]

>>14604162
No, sir, stop putting words In my mouth, sir.

[Anonymous No.14604185]

>>14604180
>No, sir, stop putting words In my mouth, sir.
tell me. what are the forms of energy you are including in your model?

[Anonymous No.14604188]

>>14604162
I already assumed that we are all talking about kinetic energy since that's what OP seems to be talking about. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.14604192]

>>14604178
Obviously you have calculated what force you'd have to use on the ball on a string to accelerate it that fast, right? Go ahead and show us your calculations otherwise you're just making shit up.

[Anonymous No.14604205]

>>14604188
>I already assumed that we are all talking about kinetic energy since that's what OP seems to be talking about. Sorry.
Look, I don't know why no one here seems to realize this but there is more than one form of energy. And total energy is the only conserved energy. Lets think about linear motion. You are up on a hill. You are stationary. You have no kinetic energy. So? does it have to be zero forever? no, you have alot of total energy, because up on a hill you have potential energy. once you start accelerating down, which you need no energy to do you will lose gravitational energy and gain kinetic energy. Once you are back on the ground you have lost all your gravitational potential energy, but you'll have alot of kinetic energy, until you brake and the kinetic energy is transformed into heat energy in your tires. This is what OP an a surprising amount of people on /sci/ can't comprehend. The total energy is always the same, but it takes different forms. each different form of energy will change in a dynamic system.

[Anonymous No.14604211]

>>14604205
>Look, I don't know why no one here seems to realize this
Obviously, it's total energy that's conserved (long small scale at least). The context is kinetic energy which is not a conserved quantity while OP believes it is.
You are preaching to the crowd here.

[Anonymous No.14604217]

>>14604205
>>14604211
Typo. I meant to say that it's conserved at least on a small scale which is what is relevant here.

[Anonymous No.14604219]

>>14604211
It is not the “total energy” that is conserved, sir. It is the angular energy that is conserved, sir. That is the mistake that I am pointing out, sir.

[Anonymous No.14604229]

>>14604219
>It is not the “total energy” that is conserved, sir. It is the angular energy that is conserved, sir.
do you have a citation for this claim or experimental data? It's contrary to physics 101. What classical physics teaches is total energy is always conserved but any single form of energy will change.

[Anonymous No.14604271]

>>14604219

[Anonymous No.14604289]

>>14604219

[Anonymous No.14604291]

>>14604219
Any form of kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. As >>14604205 explains, only the total energy is conserved.

[Anonymous No.14604305]

>>14603312
Go back to Facebook where you belong.

[Anonymous No.14604344]

>>14604178
How can I create angular momentum? If you proved that it's not conserved, you surely must have come up with an experiment to create angular momentum.

[Anonymous No.14604833]

>>14603398
DELET THIS RIGHT NOW

[Anonymous No.14604882]

God damn this board is stupid

[Anonymous No.14604926]

>>14604344
>How can I create angular momentum?
by applying torque on a body, you i crease its L. this is extremely basic stuff, anon.

[Anonymous No.14604958]

hi honey, this image is misleading. love you, honey

[Anonymous No.14605003]

>>14603954
Pulling the weights towards the center does actually create torque. As the weight moves from one radius to another, its velocity is no longer completely tangent and now there's a force component in the direction of its velocity which accelerates it.
Dunno how clear the picture is, but really, it's pretty simple geometry and you can verify it yourself.

[Anonymous No.14605015]

>>14605003
Torque is r (cross) F, since r and F are always parallel, torque is zero, hence angular momentum is conserved.

However, work is dr (dot) F, and since dr and F are parallel, there is nonzero work done, increasing the kinetic energy.

[Anonymous No.14605022]

>>14605015
Yeah, sorry. It's 3:30 where I live. I didn't think that post through. But yes, you are right. Torque must be 0 for angular momentum to hold which means that in OP's retarded model an ice skater would have to get torque from nowhere.

[Anonymous No.14605059]

>>14605015
My bad, F and dr are not parallel, but there is a component of dr that is parallel to F

[Anonymous No.14605106]

>>14603972
The guy who made that video did take quantitative data though.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/e2mE3c6mDnw/m/GDNsjz6VVC8J

[Anonymous No.14605352]

>>14605106
No physicist in history has taken quantitative data because denial is better that admitting a stupid mistake, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605355]

>>14605059
Yes, provided we discuss rotational motion and not highly elliptical motion, sir, that component is negligible, sir. Which means that the results match conservation of angular energy, sir. Please measure because you speak from ignorance, sir. You are literally grasping at straws,sir.

[Anonymous No.14605359]

>>14605022
No, sir, my cliam is that there is no torque, so angular energy is conserved, sir. Can you not recognize that you are a little bit delusional if you understand that angular momentum is conserved if there is no torque, but you need torque to explain it, sir?????

[Anonymous No.14605365]

>>14605015
Delusional, sir. If there is no torque then angular energy remains constant, sir. You can’t claim there is not torque when discussing angular momentum and then the exact same example must increase the angular energy which absolutely requires torque, sir. That is double standards and insanity, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605368]

>>14605355
>Which means that the results match conservation of angular energy, sir.
no such thing. conservation of total energy is a physical principle, but conservation of angular kinetic energy definitely isn't.

[Anonymous No.14605370]

>>14605015
That is imaginary nonsense, sir. You cannot affect that angular energy without torque, sir. Not possible. Even if your maths claims it, sir. Your maths is wrong, sir. No torque = no increase in rotational kinetic energy, sir. Not possible, sir. Delusion is bad science, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605375]

>>14605003
So your argument is that the demonstration applies torque, so the centuries old classic mainstream demonstration is wrong, sir. But not COAM, sir. The scientific method is to reject the theory that makes bad predictions, sir, not reject the experiment because reality does not agree with the theory, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605377]

>>14604291
Incorrect, sir. Experiment confirms that angular energy is conserved, sir, so the theory of COAM must be rejected, sir. No matter how much you want to appeal to tradition, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605380]

>>14604229
Physics also teaches that centripetal force applies no torque and rotational kinetic energy is the sun of work done by torque, sir, so the rotational kinetic energy remains constant because there is no torque, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605397]

stop bumping the schizo thread

[Anonymous No.14605419]

>>14605397
The schizos are the people who cannot accept that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, like yourself, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605546]

>>14605368
Obviously, not , sir. It has only just been discovered, sir. Duh

[Anonymous No.14605563]

>>14605419
Sir, are you open to the idea that it is not 8 billion people in the world who are delusional but it is just you? What are the odds that everyone got insane at the same time? What are the odds that a non-academic topples such a fundamental conservation law without understanding Noether's theorem? Here's a quick spoiler: if the conservation of angular momentum is broken, then the universe is not symmetric under rotation. And for all we know, all physics works the same way if you rotate the universe by an angle.
Please, sir, see a mental health professional

[Anonymous No.14605583]

>>14605563
You presenting an argumentum ad populum and an appeal to tradition logical fallacy is the insane behavior, sir. It is very obvious that the first person to discover a new discovery is the only one who understands it in the beginning, sir. Duh

[Anonymous No.14605618]

>>14605583
You can't just "discover" a single thing. Your explanation must explain all other phenomena as well. You say that angular momentum is not conserved. Why doesn't the earth fall into the sun? Why doesn't the moon fall on the earth? If you can't explain this at the same time, you did not make a discovery.

[Anonymous No.14605629]

>>14605359
If you used reading comprehension you'd get that we corrected ourselves and that there is no torque in this scenario. Angular momentum is a time integral of torque so 0 torque by definition means angular momentum does not change.

[Anonymous No.14605636]

>>14605629
You cannot define something to be conserved, sir.
Besides the fact that you clearly have a comprehension issue, sir. Reality disagrees with your “definition”, sir. So your “definition” is delusional, sir. This is not difficult, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605640]

>>14605636
Is physics symmetrical under rotations?

[Anonymous No.14605643]

>>14605636
So you have some novel definition of angular momentum? And you have alternate equations for it? Because as long as you are using the classic definition of [math]L=I\omega[/math] then it's still a result of torque and 0 torque means no change in angular momentum. And no, rotational energy doesn't require torque to change.

[Anonymous No.14605684]

you're arguing with a mental patient that is actually mentally incapable of learning and accepting new information

why are you wasting your time, truly, he is a lost cause

if you see a crazy homeless person ranting about satan and the number 7 on a sidewalk do you engage them or steer well clear?

[Anonymous No.14605695]

>>14605643
No, sir, the classic definition is L = r x p, sir, so it is literally defined to change when the radius changes, sir. That is exactly how it behaves, sir. Like it is defined, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605698]

>>14605684
#adhominem is very bad science, sir. Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsified COAM and stop behaving like a clown going in circles presenting fake nonsense argument against the author instead of arguing the argument, sir?

[Anonymous No.14605701]

>>14605640
If that is consistent with COAM, sir then very obviously not, sir. Because COAM is falsified by the fact that nature disagrees, sir. Ie: by the the scientific method, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605702]

>>14605698
its not ad hominen, because im not saying youre a bad person, im saying you actually have a brain defect that is stopping you from learning and understanding issues properly

[Anonymous No.14605712]

>>14605702
That is adhominem, sir. By definition, sir. If you address the person instead of their argument then that is #adhominem, sir. Even if it is a compliment. Which this certainly is not , sir. This is #adhominem and disgusting.

[Anonymous No.14605716]

>>14605701
If Conservation of angular momentum is falsified then explain why orbital mechanics work perfectly fine. For example, Earth's orbit around the Sun:
At aphelion:
[math]152.1\cdot 29.29\approx 4455 \pm 1[/math]
At perihelion:
[math]147.1\cdot 30.29\approx 4456 \pm 1[/math]

[Anonymous No.14605719]

>>14605712
This isn’t #twitter shut the fuck up braindead schizo

[Anonymous No.14605723]

>>14605716
Google “orbital prediction error “ and then concede from the literally thousands imof physicists papers confirming it, that our orbital mechanics is incompetent, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605725]

>>14605719
Fuck you, brain dead ignorant arrogant moron.

[Anonymous No.14605726]

>>14605723
every day you post, multiple random people conclude you are schizo (catch all for mentally ill on 4chan), does this ever get through to you?

do you ever have self doubt like normal people do?

why dont you go to a doctor and talk about this stuff or are you afraid of what he might find?

[Anonymous No.14605731]

>>14605701
>>14605716
Meanwhile rotational energy is not conserved:
[math]E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math]
At aphelion:
[math]\frac{1}{2}m(29.29)^2\approx 429m[/math]
At perihelion:
[math]\frac{1}{2}m(30.29)^2\approx 459m[/math]

>>14605723
Less than 0.025% of an error hardly seems devastating when your alternative introduces more than 6% of error. And that is for a very circular orbit and will get much worse for eccentric orbits.
That 0.025% in case of Earth is explained by the presence of other bodies in the system. Unfortunately, it's not that simple because the angular momentum is conserved for the whole system, not just the Earth-Sun pair but it still works.

[Anonymous No.14605740]

>>14605701
Yes, it is. But it’s also a very fundamental theory. You need to show that the world is not symmetrical. Your ball on a string is not science if you don’t consider the implications. Come up with a theory explaining everything we see. Your ball on a string, the planetary movement and symmetry. If you only have the ball on a string, you are not a scientist and your paper is not scientific.

[Anonymous No.14605745]

>>14605731
If the error is big enough to be detectable on every single thing that we mess accurately, then claiming it is small is simply #denial of the fact that we are clearly incompetent, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605748]

>>14605740
The ball on a string has been science ever since it was most likely invented by Newton himself and has been mainstream guaranteed for decades, sir. Shifting the goalposts is what is unscientific, sir.

[Anonymous No.14605750]

>>14605745
So if every year we lose 0.025% of angular momentum, after how many years does the earth crash into the sun?

[Anonymous No.14605754]

>>14605748
Newton explained all prior observations with his new theories. Einstein incorporated Newtonian mechanics and expanded it. If you want to add something new, it must be compatible with everything we observed so far. If you can’t, you’re just messing around and not conducting actual science.

[Anonymous No.14605757]

>>14605745
No, the measurement is just incomplete because it doesn't include the angular momentum of the Sun and other bodies. It is also an approximation because I didn't use very precise values (because it doesn't matter here to show the principle).
And if "big enough to be detectable" error should completely disqualify something then you are way more wrong about conservation of rotational energy. The error is more than 6% between Aphelion and Perihelion of Earth which means that according to you yourself rotational energy is not conserved.
>>14605750
We don't btw. The 0.025% is the error between Aphelion and Perihelion.

[Anonymous No.14605763]

>>14605757
Of course we don’t. But mr. Citizen science over here believes that angular momentum is not conserved. If it isn’t, we should fall into the sun eventually.

[Anonymous No.14605773]

>>14605763
Yeah, true. If rotational energy was conserved then orbits would be very unstable both ways. You would randomly spiral into the Sun or out into deep space.

[Anonymous No.14605776]

>>14605763
>>14605773
And eccentric orbits should not be possible either.

[Anonymous No.14605777]

>>14605754
I'm pretty sure he rejects Newton's laws of motion. Otherwise how could reject conservation of momentum?

[Anonymous No.14605808]

OP, what is angular momentum? What's the difference between that and 'angular energy'?

I'm not looking for equations that predict angular momentum or energy, just a description.

[Anonymous No.14605915]

>>14605750
We do not lose it. It is an incompetent prediction, so the next time we measure it is re-gained so to speak. It is just plain incompetence. We don’t have a clue where our satellites are. Simple. If you start listening to me, you will be able to make much more accurate predictions. What the fuck is there to lose???

[Anonymous No.14605922]

>>14605915
>We don’t have a clue where our satellites are.
We know where our satellites are to such great precision that a missile could hit you in the face thanks to satellite navigation.

[Anonymous No.14605971]

>>14605915
If that was the case then I wouldn't be able to point a parabolic dish at a satellite to receive signals from it. GPS which depends on the position of the GPS satellites published by the US government would also not work if they weren't where we think they are.

[Anonymous No.14605977]

>>14603312
You do realise we can measure angular velocity right?

It has both scalar and vector components. Both energy and momentum are conserved.

[Anonymous No.14606089]

>>14605977
When the moment of inertia changes, the kinetic energy is not conserved. OP doesn't understand it and thinks that implies it's a free energy device.

[Anonymous No.14606098]

>>14606089
Why don’t you address the argument and stop attacking the author personally asshole?

[Anonymous No.14606107]

>>14606098
>Why don’t you address the argument and stop attacking the author personally asshole?
he did. the solution to OPs paradox is so simple. kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity, however total energy is. OP fails to account for different forms of energy. OP has been told this probably hundreds of times he just fails to respond, and continues to troll.

[Anonymous No.14606114]

>>14606107
he's not trolling. he's put his entire name and identity at stake, and has submitted his crap to journals (including Nature) for years. if this is a troll, he's a really stupid one.

[Anonymous No.14606117]

>>14606114
it's hard to believe when prompted to provide a citation or experimental data he coincidently disappear then just reiterates "kinetic energy is conserved, and total energy is not." isn't just a troll. after so long wouldn't anyone even with a single digit IQ look for validation in literature or just perform an experiment?

[Anonymous No.14606133]

>>14606117
I do not have to perform an experiment, sir, because I have a mathematical physics paper which cannot be defeated, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606139]

>>14606107
Incorrect, sir. That is foot stamping, sir. Not science, sir. Measure and you will see that angular energy is conserved.

[Anonymous No.14606143]

>>14605977
You realize that if energy is conserved that p is conserved, right. Since L = r x p, sir, it is mathematically impossible for both L and p to be conserved when r changes in magnitude because they are on opposite sides of the equation, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606145]

>>14605971
#bullshit is not science, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606156]

>>14605922
No, sir, you are totally mistaken, sir. The only thing we know for sure about our satellites is that they are not where we expect them to be, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606168]

>>14606156
Source?

[Anonymous No.14606170]

>>14606156
Maybe they are not where you expect them to be, but your expectation matters very little.

[Anonymous No.14606176]

>>14606170
No, sir, please google “orbital prediction error “ for thousands of papers which confirm that our orbital mechanics is incompetent, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606178]

>>14606139
>Measure and you will see that angular energy is conserved.
no. You are the one with the incredible claim. You post your data. Exactly how is your claim scientific BTW? You butchered classical physics. You have no citations, when did you do an experiment? Where is your data?

[Anonymous No.14606181]

>>14606133
>I have a mathematical physics paper which cannot be defeated,
In your paper you claim kinetic energy is conserved. This isn't a physical principle. You have misapplied classical physics.

[Anonymous No.14606189]

>>14606178
>You have no citations
Well, he cites Halliday Resnick a couple of times. But a super old version

[Anonymous No.14606204]

>>14606189
>Halliday Resnick
so this person claims kinetic energy is conserved while total energy isn't?

[Anonymous No.14606214]

>>14606204
No, sir, I am claiming that angular energy is conserved, sir. Is this difficult?

[Anonymous No.14606217]

>>14606181
No,sir, I am claiming that angular energy is conserved, sir. Is this difficult???

[Anonymous No.14606227]

>>14606214
It isn't conserved. I gave you an example of Earth having different energy at different parts of the orbit which you never addressed. According to your own principle that even the smallest error disqualifies a theory, you are now forced to give up and admit defeat.

[Anonymous No.14606231]

>>14606217
It is conserved, yes. In closed systems. Not when you have a guy pull on some string, putting energy into the system.

[Anonymous No.14606235]

>>14606231
No , sir, angular energy is conserved when there is no torque, sir. Measure it and see. Please?

[Anonymous No.14606238]

>>14606227
Your example is based upon theory, sir

[Anonymous No.14606246]

>>14606176
That is also air drag.

[Anonymous No.14606248]

>>14606235
You put in energy when you pull the string. That means you add energy.

[Anonymous No.14606273]

>>14606248
No, sir, you apply no torque when you pull the string, so you can’t affect that angular energy, sir. This is not difficult, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606274]

>>14606273
I said you put in energy. Please, sir, if the word "energy" looks like the word "torque" to you, get glasses.

[Anonymous No.14606279]

>>14606246
Blurting friction at a massive contradiction is called #graspingatstraws, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606287]

>>14606214
>I am claiming that angular energy
And you have no experimental data nor any citation to support your claim, while you've been told a hundred times it's total energy and not rotational kinetic energy that's conserved? You are just delusional? I never thought anyone dumb enough to fail physics 101 could have so much confidence.

[Anonymous No.14606288]

>>14606279
Ignoring friction when proving a groundbreaking "discovery" is just pathetic. Let's assume that you're correct. That you can disprove the conservation of angular momentum. Then do it properly, take all factors into account

[Anonymous No.14606407]

>>14606279
>#graspingatstraws
Are you bitchy because you got banned on twitter for being a schizo so you keep putting hashtags on 4chan pretending like youre on twitter or something? what a braindead loser schizo lmfao

[Anonymous No.14606543]

>>14606273
Torque isn't necessary to change rotational energy. It's necessary to change angular momentum. If you want to know how string tension can accelerate a rotating mass refer to the picture in >>14605003

[Anonymous No.14606600]

>>14604021
>spams the fuck out of /sci/ for fucking YEARS
intermittently? because I'm here daily for at least since 2018 and only in the last couple of weeks do I see his spam.

[Anonymous No.14606647]

>>14606600
It’s not spam.
I am presenting my discovery.
The fact that you do not like what I have discovered does not make it spam.
That is delusional bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14606682]

>>14606647
You're not presenting any discovery. Just your own incompetence and grandiose delusions.
If you are so sure of your theory, why did you beg a guy to delete his video demonstrating conservation of angular momentum? And why are you refusing to answer where the energy comes from and goes to?

[Anonymous No.14606685]

>>14606647
>has multiple threads up
>continues to make more on the same thing
what the fuck is your problem?

[Anonymous No.14606710]

>>14606279
The equation for a simple pendulum suggests it swings forever, will you be taking that question to the scientific community next?

[Anonymous No.14606714]

>>14606600
I think that anon was saying that's what he'll become. As I understand it he's only showed up here recently after being banned and run out of everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.14606845]

>>14606710
Are you stupid?
12000 rpm being disappeared is not negligible just because you can say the word “friction” you weasel. Face the fact that 12000 rpm in the second it takes to pull in the string is idiotic prediction and falsifies COAM, sir.

[Anonymous No.14606856]

>>14606845
Can you prove that friction cannot do that?

[Anonymous No.14606860]

>>14606845
Have you actually done that experiment? You couldn't have because the forces actually required to pull a weight close like that are more than a human could likely produce with his muscles.
I don't see why friction isn't a good explanation for you. It's quite literally the mechanism by which the rotating pendulum in the experiment loses momentum and energy. But the angular momentum is still conserved. The momentum was transferred to the hand of the person holding the setup through friction. If that person was standing on a boat or something, the boat would start to slightly rotate now.

[Anonymous No.14606868]

>>14606845
You claim that it's the energy that's conserved. Please, explain why a rotating weight on a string slows down losing energy over time? You instantly lose your ground if you say friction so you must come up with an alternative explanation.

[Anonymous No.14606878]

>>14606868
How do I “lose my ground if I say ‘friction’”? You idiot.
I have never denied friction and I have no need to twit.
Make sense or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14606882]

>>14606845
Sir, if angular momentum is not conserved, how does this work?
https://youtu.be/iaauRiRX4do

[Anonymous No.14606900]

>>14606860
No, you idiot. The experiment is the undoubtedly centuries old, probably invented by Newton, well established and still in modern use rugged reliable and repeatable ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum. Every single one of must be millions of renditions in history spun faster. All of them falsify conservation of angular momentum. The “law” is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14606932]

>>14606900
It's very funny when an incompetent person blames others instead of themselves for their mistakes. In your case, it's just sad tho.

[Anonymous No.14606934]

>>14606882
Is that quantified evidence, sir? #wishfulthinking

[Anonymous No.14606940]

>>14606856
You have to show us a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm because you take steps to reduce friction. Otherwise we are not doing science, you are just blurting personal incredulities and neglecting the evidence like a flat earther.

[Anonymous No.14607008]

>>14606940
Oh, so you admit the experiment is faulty because of friction?

[Anonymous No.14607009]

>>14606940
No man YOU claim to revolutionise physics, so YOU need to show that you have all nuisance factors under control. It is not my task to do your experiment properly. Either you present a well-controlled experiment and show that it doesn’t add up, or you turn off your computer and stop bothering us.

[Anonymous No.14607012]

>>14606934
It seems like angular momentum is conserved. Please explain how your theory is compatible with what we see in this video.

[Anonymous No.14607016]

>>14607008
No, sir, I am saying that you are not reasonable to say “friction” and neglect an absurdity, sir. Duh.

[Anonymous No.14607023]

>>14607009
No, sir, you have to show false premiss or illogic, or accept my conclusion, sir.

[Anonymous No.14607025]

>>14607016
But you cannot justify why you can't model the friction in the experiment? I think the absurdity here is your lack of comprehension.

[Anonymous No.14607026]

>>14607012
No, sir, it seems to me like angular energy is conserved, sir. You are just misinterpreting the evidence, sir.

[Anonymous No.14607028]

>>14607023
The universe is a simulation. You cannot prove me wrong so you must accept my conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14607030]

>>14607023
No, sir, you have to prove your claim with a physical experiment, or accept that you're a braindead retard, sir. Duh.

[Anonymous No.14607031]

>>14606932
I thought it was funny when he did that too, and you are even more funny in your misinterpretation, right now, sir.

[Anonymous No.14607033]

>>14607026
How can you possibly conclude that from the video? A spinning man has clearly more energy than a stationary man so rotational energy cannot be conserved here.

[Anonymous No.14607041]

>>14607030
Do you accept unbiased independent experiment confirming my claim with a perfect prediction, sir?

[Anonymous No.14607054]

>>14607041
You mean an independently performed experiment like this one? The one where you are begging the author to lie that it's faked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg

[Anonymous No.14607068]

>>14607041
No, sir, you have to prove your "perfect" claim with a physical experiment, or accept that you're a braindead retard, sir. Duh.

[Anonymous No.14607136]

>>14606845
Why does it seem so impossible to you? I can make a guitar string vibrate at 200hz with my pinky finger.

[Anonymous No.14607397]

>>14603312
http://alpha.math.uga.edu/~shifrin/Spivak_physics.pdf

Here is a proof of conservation of Angular Momentum on Page 51

[Anonymous No.14607419]

>>14607068
Hi honey, I packed your favorite lunch today, its on the table. Love you, honey.

[Anonymous No.14607426]

>>14603444
>Mandlbabe
Wtf u sayin u cunt to be terminated.

[Anonymous No.14607431]

>>14607068
Fuck off saying sir. Stop pretending to be a shitty indian or nut job. Not funny either zoomer. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.14607615]

>>14607068
Babe have you offered any demonstrable proof of your COAM violation? I will help you replace it with CUM babe

[Anonymous No.14607838]

>>14607397
Here’s is a proof that COAM is false: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14607841]

>>14607838
Can you show it on video babe?

[Anonymous No.14607842]

>>14607136
Show us a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm and then talk, ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.14607845]

>>14607068
No, sir, I have proven my claim mathematically, sir. You have the burden of proof, sir.

[El Arcón No.14607847]

>>14603312
>angular energy

[Anonymous No.14607850]

>>14607054
No, sir, that is literally an amateur with batteries and a coat hanger who’s initial measurement is “about 8 inches “ which is not science, sir, it is a two bit hooker boasting about how deep she can throat.

[Anonymous No.14607852]

>>14607847
Based Tooker. Own this pleb

[Anonymous No.14607862]

>>14607852
You are the mindless pleb asshole.

[Anonymous No.14607866]

>>14607862
Tooker is everything you wish you were, fag.

[Anonymous No.14607879]

>>14607866
Toilet is an asshole who believes angular momentum is conserved and doesn’t want to measure just like every other #flatearth behaved “scientific” blind, deaf and dumb idiot.

[Anonymous No.14607881]

>>14607847
tooker im your biggest fan

[Anonymous No.14607900]

>>14607881
No I'm his biggest fan

[Anonymous No.14607901]

>>14607900
i have actually visited the site of his equation graffiti and taken pictures of it. Have you? I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.14607913]

>>14607901
Why don’t you measure a ball on a string and acknowledge that 12000 rpm is a stupidly wrong prediction, so the “law” of COAM is wrong.?

[Anonymous No.14607920]

>>14607901
>>14607901
I... I kneel.

[Anonymous No.14608066]

>>14607845
>You have the burden of proof
We have the burden nothing. We can just ignore your little calculations. You want to convince us, so you do the science, or you stay irrelevant to the world

[Anonymous No.14608068]

>>14607026
Energy has no direction.

[Anonymous No.14608139]

>>14608068
Angular energy does, and kinetic energy does and it is delusional to claim otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14608143]

>>14608139
Can you give a formula for that angular energy? Help me overcome my delusion and understand the true physics

[Anonymous No.14608168]

>>14608139
Angular energy is kinetic energy. And no, they do not have a direction. Energy is a scalar unit.

[Anonymous No.14608218]

>>14608168
Well you can imagine that 1/2 m v^2 is scalar, sir, but it undeniably has a direction. Moron.

[Anonymous No.14608236]

>>14608218
What's the direction? Is the direction conserved?

[Anonymous No.14608237]

>>14608218
It cannot have direction. When kinetic energy turns to heat, where does that direction go? How is the energy conserved then?

[Anonymous No.14608239]

>>14608218
If it has a direction then I'm sure you can provide a vector equation describing kinetic energy?

[Anonymous No.14608428]

>>14608239
It is very clear that kinetic energy exists because a mass has velocity and that velocity has direction, so your claim that energy does not have a direction is plain delusion, sir. Even if we have neglected the direction, sir.

[Anonymous No.14608442]

>>14608428
Does that mean you can derive a vector equation for energy then? And then show that it is conserved?

[Anonymous No.14608444]

>>14608428
So kinetic energy has the direction of the velocity?

[Anonymous No.14608454]

>>14603372
this meme's gotta be old enough to drive, if not vote

[Anonymous No.14608465]

>>14608139
>>14608218
>>14608428
If energy is a vector and has direction then you can add energy like vectors.
If two objects of equal kinetic energy collide, the energy of the system should now be zero, because the sum of their energies is now zero. This means no energy needs to be dissipated and the two objects are not destroyed by the collision.

[Anonymous No.14608498]

>>14608454
jean renoir explains in this video better than i can why the early memes will always remain the best examples of the format
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Mtd6GE_PI

[Anonymous No.14608579]

>>14603470
nice post made me chuckle

[Anonymous No.14608580]

I see the dedication to being "respectful" didn't last more than a week, John.

[Anonymous No.14608598]

>>14608580
Not only is he a deluded narcissist, but he is also a hypocrite.
Nobody saw that coming.

[Anonymous No.14608682]

>>14608580
Fuck off with your creepy personal shit asshole.

[Anonymous No.14608688]

>>14608579
Because of how stupid it is?

[Anonymous No.14608691]

>>14608465
No, sir, you cannot just cancel the energy like that sir. But the fact remains that energy has a direction. Even if it is not a vector. In any event this does not change the fact that angular momentum is not conserved.

[Anonymous No.14608698]

>>14608691
If direction has no bearing how the energy transforms then it doesn't have it. If a quantity is a adds, multiplies, and transforms like a scalar then it is a scalar. Just because you say a cat is a dog doesn't make it bark and is just a pointless name change.

[Anonymous No.14608703]

>>14608691
So what happens when you add energy pointing up and energy pointing down? Where does the resulting energy point?

[Anonymous No.14608712]

>>14608682
>>14608691
Please man can you stop with this silly shit. First you're like hurr fuck you asshole, and then you go back to this sir, sir shit. You sound like an Indian phone scammer

[Anonymous No.14608718]

>>14608712
>You sound like an Indian phone scammer
He's actually South African. It's sad how this "sir" bullshit was hammered into the people living in colonies.

[Anonymous No.14608724]

>>14603312
Does someone selfcentered and retarded failed his exams, and thinks it is a global conspiracy which make his poor math skills not run on real problems

[Anonymous No.14608729]

>>14608724
Honestly, it's just a more retarded version of the "[math]1\ne 0.999...[/math]" threads

[Anonymous No.14608759]

>>14608729
What's your personal retardation ranking? Mine is
1. Flat earthers
2. Climate change deniers
3. General antivaxxers
4. Covid antivaxxers & deniers
5. 12000 rpm
6. 6/2(1+2)
7. This here
8. 1==0.999...

[Anonymous No.14608776]

>>14608759
I think mine would be very close to yours. The bottom 4 just seem like they come from a misunderstanding and flat earthers are either poes or actual retards.

[Anonymous No.14608816]

>>14608759
The retard is the one who fails to defeat a mathematical physics paper and refuses to accept the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14608819]

>>14608703
What happens when you add two angular momentum’s together your retard.

[Anonymous No.14608832]

>>14608816
>The retard is the one who fails to defeat a mathematical physics paper
it's been defeated a long time ago. You misapplied centuries old classical physics. Total energy is conserved while "angular energy is not". I asked for experimental evidence or a citation for your claim "angular energy" is conserved and after days you have none.

[Anonymous No.14608833]

>>14608819
You add them like vectors. Because they are vectors.

[Anonymous No.14608842]

>>14608691
>angular momentum is not conserved.
you are contradicting centuries old classical physics without one citation or one bit of data. stupid.

[Anonymous No.14608846]

>>14603470
>Why should angular energy be conserved, when energy is a derived quantity, and momentum is fundamental? Things move, they don't energy.
isn't that what energy is? relationships between quantities that give you a fake number that is conserved?
>Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.[1] The theorem was proven by mathematician Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918.[2] The action of a physical system is the integral over time of a Lagrangian function, from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action. This theorem only applies to continuous and smooth symmetries over physical space.
>The theorem states that every continuous symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". The energy conservation law is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that the laws of physics do not change with time itself. Philosophically this can be stated as "nothing depends on time per se". In other words, if the physical system is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy (which is the canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, systems that are not invariant under shifts in time (e.g. systems with time-dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, an external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time-invariant again. Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in physical theories such as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time.

[Anonymous No.14608847]

>>14608819
Sir, it is very rude to answer a question with another question. But the answer in >>14608833 is correct. If you add two angular momenta with the same magnitude and opposite direction, they add up to zero. Is the same true for energy?

[Anonymous No.14608856]

>>14608846
Noether's theorem is actually a solid base for the conservation of angular momentum. John, did you just prove your own paper wrong?

[Anonymous No.14608861]

>>14605352
.

[Anonymous No.14608935]

>>14608832
That shit is so retarded. It is like questioning Google Maps just because highways are yellow and not gray like in real life.

[Anonymous No.14609067]

>>14608935
What is retarded is to say the word “friction” and neglect a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.14609069]

>>14608856
Noether’s theorem, if consistent with COAM, is falsified by my maths, sir.

[Anonymous No.14609080]

>>14609069
Wow, you disproved Noether's theorem? Did you crunch the numbers? Or are you sitting on your lazy ass, not bothering to prove anything and just spew out more bullshit?

[Anonymous No.14609125]

>>14608847
Sir, it is very rude to answer a question with another question.
Sir, the irony, sir.

[Anonymous No.14609129]

>>14609125
I answered your question and then asked another question. You did not bother to answer my question because you do not know the answer. You are not a scientist, get therapy.

[Anonymous No.14609138]

>>14609069
>my maths
Your maths don't mean shit when you completely misunderstand classical physics concepts like total energy, kinetic energy and momentum

[Anonymous No.14609137]

>>14609129
hey, shitstain.
That was the first time I posted in this thread.

[Anonymous No.14609158]

>>14609137
Congrats. I confused you with schizo OP. This is not a compliment.

[Anonymous No.14609165]

>>14609158
and I confused you for OP. This is not a compliment.

[Anonymous No.14609387]

>>14609138
Wrong, sir, maths is accepted as proof, sir.

You are simply in denial of the fact that 12000rpm objectively falsifies COAM, sir.

[Anonymous No.14609393]

>>14609125
Rude is subjective, I think you are rude.

[Anonymous No.14609398]

>>14609080
Yes, sir, people are telling me that my discovery falsifies Noether, sir. It is proven in my maths, sir http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14609401]

how can angular momentum be real if things only move in a straight line?

[Anonymous No.14609412]

>>14609387
Except you still failed to show why "12000 rpm" falsifies anything. Your argument is literally just "because I say so".

[Anonymous No.14609417]

>>14609387
>Wrong, sir, maths is accepted as proof, sir.
PhD in physics here. No. It is not. You need to show data to have your paper published. You know this, because every single journal rejected your paper.

[Anonymous No.14609418]

>>14609398
How is it proven if your maths do not mention Noether's theorem at all? Should you not write a section about the implications of your discovery? Your discovery changes the view of our universe fundamentally, so you should explain that.

[Anonymous No.14609519]

John, you forgot to send your letter

[Anonymous No.14609535]

>>14609519
John, in his early stage dementia, forgot to send it. One of us should send it for him.

[Anonymous No.14609566]

>>14609393
If you are the person to whom I ha replied... fuck off you damn kettle.

[Anonymous No.14609572]

>>14609067
Friction up ur ass

[Anonymous No.14609647]

>>14609387
>maths is accepted as proof
So basically you are saying if I write down some equations, which obey simple algebra then my conclusions must physically be valid? How did you choose to conserve "angular energy" anyways? Why not choose angular velocity, moment of inertia, or, as you'd read in any physics 101 book, angular momentum?

[Anonymous No.14609689]

>>14609647
No, sir, I say that if the theory is correct, then a rough theoretical prediction should produce a result which reasonably matches reality, sir. 12000 rpm is Ferrari engine speeds and it objectively falsifies the theory which makes that prediction, sir.

[Anonymous No.14609736]

>>14609689
But you didn't actually perform that experiment. You are just saying that it's wrong just because.

[Anonymous No.14609865]

John, it's friction and air resistance. I know it doesn't sound like that's enough to get such a loss in potential energy, but it's a 50 gram ball you're experimenting with. It doesn't take that much force to stop it from going fast, and because friction and air resistance are constantly acting on it, it never gets to the 12000 rpm.

If you really want to show what you're talking about, show that your work holds in a vacuum chamber, with minimum friction. Ball and string prediction doesn't cut it, because the ball is so light that the air resistance and friction is expected to explain the discrepancy plenty.

[Anonymous No.14610484]

>>14609865
The reason it does not “sound like enough”, sir is because it is not enough, sir. Your argument is called grasping at straws, sir. Measure and you will se that it is easy to confirm conservation of angular energy because that is what is conserved in nature, sir. You are mistaken and in #denial, sir.

[Anonymous No.14610491]

>>14609736
I made many different experimental prototypes, sir, which is how I made the discovery, sir. I have shown personal renditions of the example,sir, http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

[Anonymous No.14610564]

>>14609865
> in a vacuum cleaner

[Anonymous No.14610569]

>>14603312
in the absence of torques, angular momentum is conserved. But when the rotating radius in a variable radius system is decreased, as for example in the classic case of an ice skater pulling in her arms, the skater is performing work on the system (muscle force travels through a distance). that work input shows up as an increase in the skater's angular kinetic energy.

[Anonymous No.14610571]

>>14603410
Where do I go to see a prostitute for only 25 cents?

[Anonymous No.14610581]

>>14610569
No, sir, that is the existing idea, sir, but it is wrong, sir. It is proven false by the fact that it makes stupidly wrong predictions, sir.

[Anonymous No.14610584]

>>14610571
It means a cheap prostitute, idiot. Fuck off

[Anonymous No.14610615]

>>14610581
"It is wrong because I say it's wrong"
Prove that it's stupid

[Anonymous No.14610623]

>>14610615
>Prove
Worthless talentless trash

[Anonymous No.14610645]

>>14610623
John, please don't insult me, sir

[Anonymous No.14610649]

>>14610645
Who the fuck is John

[Anonymous No.14610661]

>>14609519
is this a purposeful reference lol
>Wants my flywheel radius exceeds universe but love IS WAR
mfw LIW

[Anonymous No.14610665]

>>14610649
the OP

[Anonymous No.14610746]

>>14610491
But you didn't. I know you didn't do the experiment you did the calculations for because the forces involved are very high for a simple DIY experiment.
>>14610484
You are retarded. If there's friction in the experiment, the angular momentum of the system is transferred to the hand of whoever is holding it.

[Anonymous No.14610817]

>>14610484
>The reason it does not “sound like enough”, sir is because it is not enough, sir.
>It is not enough because I say so
Hey, if you can pull out evaluations out of your ass, then you can prove everything. I find 9.81m/s^2 a lot. So the theory of gravity must be wrong.

[Anonymous No.14610917]

>>14610817
12000 rpm is objectively wrong, asshole.

[Anonymous No.14610921]

>>14610746
Yes, I did, and the forces are nowhere near what is predicted, and that is the proof, idiot.

[Anonymous No.14610922]

>>14610645
That was not me. Sorrry to disappoint you asshole.

[Anonymous No.14610925]

>>14610615
No, the scientific method is to reject theory which makes bad predictions.

[Anonymous No.14610929]

>>14610921
I'm sure you have very well documented the experiment and predicted all the variables as well as controlled for things that can influence the result of the experiment. Great, you just need to show your work.
Also, again. According to your theory (that kinetic energy is conserved), the weight will not accelerate when you pull the string. But it very clearly does so how can that be?

[Anonymous No.14610933]

>>14610929
I do not need an experiment, moron, you do to fulfill the burden of proof that my mathematical physics paper puts on your shoulders. Grow the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.14610937]

>>14610933
Well, no. You are the one making a very fantastical claim about physics. So you should set up a proper controlled experiment or have someone else do it for you. It is no one's obligation to do it to prove your claim. If you cannot defend your own claim where does that put you?

[Anonymous No.14610954]

>>14610937You have no idea what you are talking about, sir. A mathematical physics paper is proof. If you cannot fault the maths, then you have to accept the conclusion. End of story. Or show us a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm as is predicted, sir.
Aside from the fact that I have independent experimental confirmation in the LabRat’s experiment anyway, but if you neglect mathematical proof, then you will just as well neglect independent experiment as well.

[Anonymous No.14610968]

>>14610954
>You have no idea what you are talking about, sir. A mathematical physics paper is proof.
No you, idiot. Unlike you I'm a scientist. Unlike you I have published papers. Calculating something and saying "this is wrong" without any data or other proof is just lunacy. Why do you think, no one published your paper?

[Anonymous No.14610973]

>>14610954
I can fault the math though. You assume that the system is isolated but it's not. The total L of the system is:
[eqn]L_T=I\omega+L_S[/eqn]
Where [math]L_T[/math] is total angular momentum, [math]I\omega[/math] is your ball on a string, and [math]L_S[/math] is the momentum of the structure the experiment is fixed to.
If the system was isolated then [math]I\omega[/math] would be constant but you fail to predict how the momentum transfers from [math]I\omega[/math] to [math]L_S[/math] giving you erroneous results. The [math]L_T[/math] is still conserved though.

[Anonymous No.14610993]

>>14610973
No, sir, I don’t make any assumptions. My equations are referenced and for the example, sir. 12000 rpm is the existing physics prediction, sir. 12000 rpm is objectively wrong. The theory is wrong, sir. To fault my maths, you have to point out an equation number and explain the error within it which stands up to rebuttal, or accept the conclusion, sir. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14610998]

>>14610968
You may be a scientist, but you are the idiot, sir. You have failed to measure anything and have only “it spins faster” as the sum total of your evidence and that is shown false in the discussion section of my paper, sir. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14610999]

>>14610968
Proof by intimidation logical fallacy is totally stupid and unprofessional behavior, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611008]

>>14610998
>You have failed to measure anything
No you

[Anonymous No.14611010]

>>14611008
No, you. I have measured, that is how I made the discovery you fool. You still lie to students about how things “spin faster” and are refusing to measure and making excuses, like a flat earth fuck.

[Anonymous No.14611011]

>>14611010
What number did you measure?

[Anonymous No.14611014]

>>14611011
Not 12000 rpm, idiot.

[Anonymous No.14611015]

>>14611011
What number did you measure you ignorant arrogant fuck.

[Anonymous No.14611025]

>>14611014
11999? 11998? 11997? 11996?

[Anonymous No.14611029]

>>14611025
Lying piece of shit.
Is lying good science asshole.

[Anonymous No.14611031]

>>14611029
I'm asking how much you measured. How can a question be a lie, sir? Was it 11995? 11994? 11993?

[Anonymous No.14611034]

>>14611031
My apologies, I misunderstood.
I measured the experimental prototypes that I designed for the purpose of conserving as much angular momentum as possible, sir. My r&d is confidential, so I cannot divulge it, sir. That is why I proved it in my theoretical physics papers, sir. I do not have to measure the example to know that 12000 rpm is objectively wrong, sir and you do not need measurements to know either, sir. 12000 rpm is objectively stupidly wrong, sir

[Anonymous No.14611040]

>>14611034
>My r&d is confidential, so I cannot divulge it, sir.
>I do not have to measure

[Anonymous No.14611047]

>>14610993
"The total angular momentum of an isolated system remains constant"
So you must have assumed that your experiment is an isolated system which is wrong. Otherwise, you'd know that angular momentum is not conserved for non-isolated systems.

[Anonymous No.14611048]

>>14611040
Yes, very fitting. The scientists are still telling each other that “it spins faster”. Hahahahbaaba. They are too scared to actually measure it. Hahahhabaabahaah. Because. Hahahaha because… hahahaha because they might find out that they have been totally fucking stupid. Hahjahahahabahabba. For more than three hundred years. HAHHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.14611052]

>>14611047
No, idiot. I chose an existing well established mainstream demonstration that is undoubtedly hundreds of years old and was probably invented by Newton himself. Fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.14611060]

>>14611048
And yet here you are, claiming to have discovered something and then refusing to share your experimental data.
Call back when you are ready to publish your data. Until then I will continue to CORRECTLY apply conservation laws and solve real-life problems with them in an accurate manner.

[Anonymous No.14611062]

>>14611034
>My r&d is confidential, so I cannot divulge it, sir.
Then it is not an official discovery. Part of the scientific method is that your theories are falsifiable. If you do not give us a number, we cannot falsify it. Experiments need to be repeatable, at least in principle. No one will build a second Large Hadron Collider, but there is nothing stopping us from doing so. The design is public: https://cds.cern.ch/record/782076/files/CERN-2004-003-V1-ft.pdf
The design of the experiments is public: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2285584/files/ATLAS-TDR-029.pdf
The analysis is public and contains numbers, unlike yours: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7214.pdf
All the raw data is public, so everyone can verify what they did: https://opendata.cern.ch/
Of course, you do not need to write 1100 pages of design reports and your data is not 2 petabytes. But follow the general principles of science if you want to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.14611063]

>>14611060
I have made my proof theoretically. Is that not good enough for you while you are still accepting the idiotic existing physics evidence that “it spins faster” that is double standards, asshole.

[Anonymous No.14611066]

>>14611062
Please address my paper and stop talking shit, sir. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14611070]

>>14611063
Your theoretical "proof" is flawed because you refuse to divulge the assumptions you made when performing the calculations. Everyone knows that angular momentum is not conserved in a non-isolated system. You have not made any big discoveries. You are just confused about what an open system is.

[Anonymous No.14611073]

>>14611070
Bullshit is not science asshole. Rebuttal 9 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals#fullTextFileContent

[Anonymous No.14611076]

>>14611073
I don't care about your rebuttal. You have discovered something that everyone already knows. That angular momentum is not conserved in open systems. Wow, congratulations, you can go home now.

[Anonymous No.14611093]

>>14611076
Angular momentum is not conserved anywhere and a prepared written rebuttal cannot just be ignored because you feel like neglecting the evidence you fucking #flatearther

[Anonymous No.14611101]

>>14611093
The only thing your argument proves is that angular momentum is not conserved in open systems. Extrapolating from that to "it's not conserved anywhere" is extremely unscientific.

[Anonymous No.14611108]

>>14611101
If it is not conserved in a ball on a string then it is not conserved anywhere because the laws of physics are universal you ignorant fucking #flatearther

[Anonymous No.14611120]

>>14611108
They are universal for elementary laws. Conservation of angular momentum emerges from basic laws of motion.
Btw, what do we do about Newton's laws of motion since you have debunked them now?

[Anonymous No.14611126]

>>14611120
You are clearly an engineer because you have the delusion. Go and read rebuttal 16 and then STFU. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals#fullTextFileContent

[Anonymous No.14611129]

>>14611126
But what about Newton's laws of motion? Considering that they're the basis for the conservation of momentum laws they must be false. Do you have an alternative for them?

[Anonymous No.14611170]

Did you send the letter yesterday?

[Anonymous No.14611175]

>>14611129
No, fool. L = r x p, so the momentum being conserved will mean that that angular momentum changes when the radius changes. By definition.

[Anonymous No.14611188]

>>14611175
You are applying force over time to decrease the radius so the momentum is transferred between systems.

[Anonymous No.14611190]

>>14611175
Or, hear me out, you cannot change the radius unless you change the momentum. Which is what you do when you pull on that string.

[Anonymous No.14611192]

>>14611175
Does this formula depend on gravitational force? Gravity as textbooks teach it is wrong. The formula in textbooks predicts things to fall up, when in reality they fall down. This can be easily proven.

[Anonymous No.14611203]

>>14611188
No, sir, it is not results to change the principles of physics after they are shown to highlight an issue, sir. This is a well established demonstration and it is supposed to COAM. #shiftingthegoalposts is bad science.

[Anonymous No.14611210]

>>14611203
It's very well known. Force is a mechanism of transferring momentum. Whenever there's a force there's momentum transfer. You should know this.

[Anonymous No.14611216]

>>14611210
Yes, sir, but that does defeat my proof, sir, you are simply grasping at straws and neglecting what is proven, sir. Address my paper.

[Anonymous No.14611220]

>>14611216
Why would I care about your conclusions if you fail to account for the transfer of momentum within the experiment? The system is open so you cannot neglect it.

[Anonymous No.14611223]

>>14611220
Because I make absolutely no failure in my paper, sir and you should address it reasonably, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611239]

>>14611223
Stupid people often don't know they are stupid. But you should have noticed that when the whole scientific body is against you.

[Anonymous No.14611246]

>>14611239
Just like Galileo and Copernicus were obviously stupid because everyone was against their discoveries, right, sir?

[Anonymous No.14611251]

>>14611246
Common misconception. They weren't. Both of them had the support of the church when they were publishing their ideas. In the case of Galileo, they fell out because he had beef with the pope or something.

[Anonymous No.14611255]

>>14611251
Absolutely bullshit , sir. Every new scientific discovery faces rejection initially, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611259]

>>14611255
Some do but generally, well-formulated discoveries don't.

[Anonymous No.14611262]

>>14611259
Bullshit. You making up your own imaginary evidence is delusional nonsense, sir. Cut the crap.

[Anonymous No.14611264]

Lmao. Get a life loser. And read a book.

[Anonymous No.14611288]

>>14611264
The loser is the one blind to facts, sir, like you.

[Anonymous No.14611417]

>>14611190
You cannot change the perpendicular component of the momentum, sir, so angular energy is conserved which contradicts COAM, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611428]

>>14610564
Show us 12000 rpm if you think that is reasonable and stop making extraordinary claims.

[Anonymous No.14611431]

>>14609418
My maths falsifies COAM. Duh.

[Anonymous No.14611435]

>>14609417
Yea, as soon as I presented my paper the rules changed. Until then you had to point out an error in the maths or accept the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14611437]

>>14609417
Not a single journal addressed my paper , sir. Rejection without review is the definition of prejudice, sir. Which is the same behavior as racism or sexism, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611442]

>>14609412
Please see rebuttal 3 and concede, sir. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

[Anonymous No.14611444]

>>14609401
Exactly, sir. Angular momentum conservation is not real

[Anonymous No.14611453]

>>14608861
Show us a ball on a string demonstration measurement from science which confirms COAM then if you don’t believe me, sir

[Anonymous No.14611457]

>>14608842
Incorrect, I am applying the existing theory and it contradicts reality, sir

[Anonymous No.14611461]

>>14608776
Fuck you asshole

[Anonymous No.14611471]

>>14608718
I grew up in a brothel and then ran my own businesses. I have seldom used the word “sir” in my life and I feel a little bit uncomfortable when people call me that. I was told by a scientist that they don’t listen to me because I don’t show them enough respect, so I am trying it out. I am not comfortable calling people who have been nasty to me, “sir.” But it does seem to have a slight calming effect on the delusionals.

[Anonymous No.14611473]

>>14608698
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM no matter how much mud you try and stir up, sir. Face facts.

[Anonymous No.14611477]

>>14608598
Fuck you and your character assassination you piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.14611481]

>>14608444
Obviously, sir. How can you even think to deny that it is doubly true because it contains the velocity times the velocity, so it has the same direction even more strongly so, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611485]

>>14608442
No. I am not a mathematician, sir. I am an inventor who made a discovery, sir. Please stop evading my discovery, sir?

[Anonymous No.14611488]

>>14611481
The velocity in the kinetic energy is the magnitude of velocity. It has no direction.

[Anonymous No.14611491]

>>14608143
Angular energy is defined as rotational kinetic energy, except that it is conserved instead of angular momentum, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611494]

>>14608066
No, sir, please see rebuttal 1 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

[Anonymous No.14611500]

>>14607033
I measured it. Dumb ass

[Anonymous No.14611502]

>>14611500
Explain how you measured it from the video.

[Anonymous No.14611505]

>>14607028
Except that I am providing overwhelming evidence of every single ball on a string demonstration ever conducted in history. Thousands of them, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611509]

>>14607025
How do I “model the friction” when I am making a generic hypothetical prediction, sir? It is impossible. I do not have any of the parameters or any idea of what the actual apparatus is, sir. This is theoretical physics we are discussing, sir, not Alan report, sir. Duh.

[Anonymous No.14611513]

>>14611509
Lol, enough said.

[Anonymous No.14611514]

>>14606682
No, sir, I present irrefutable theoretical proof of my claim, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611518]

>>14606543
Since rotational kinetic energy can literally be described as the sun of the work done by torque, sir, it is undeniably required that there be torque to change it, sir. The converse is also true, that without torque it is conserved, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611524]

>>14606288
No, sir, it is absolutely necessary that I apply the equations as they are in my physics book, sir. That is how a reductio ad absurdum works, sir. Duh.

[Anonymous No.14611528]

>>14606287
Bullshit. I have independent perfect confirmation experimentally of COAE. The LabRat’s experiment confirms COAE perfectly. Then he tries to change the results to better match the theory, which is biased, sir. Example 2, sir http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

[Anonymous No.14611530]

>>14606274
Well it is impossible to put in angular energy without torque, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611535]

>>14606168
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/7/1377

[Anonymous No.14611537]

>>14605808
Angular energy is rotational kinetic energy, except that it is conserved instead of angular momentum. Sir.

[Anonymous No.14611538]

>>14605777
Nature rejects conservation of angular momentum, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611541]

>>14605776
Wishful thinking speculation.

[Anonymous No.14611544]

>>14605726
Argumentum ad populum is known to be logical fallacy for thousands of years since Roman times, sir. Why are you behaving illogically, sir?

[Anonymous No.14611548]

>>14605618
No, sir, a discovery is always a “single thing”. What are you talking about???

[Anonymous No.14611552]

>>14604192
My calculations are here, sir: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14611554]

>>14604185
Please see my paper, sir : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14611557]

>>14604108
You have to measure before you can be confident that the theory is right, sir.

[Anonymous No.14611558]

>>14604094
I don’t have to measure because I chose to prove it theoretically, sir. You have to fault my maths or accept the conclusion, sir, or show a measurement, sir. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14611563]

>>14611541
No, that's a consequence of your ideas. If it was as you say then orbits are not possible at all.

[Anonymous No.14611564]

>>14604089
Please see example 2: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

[Anonymous No.14611570]

>>14604082
No, sir, I assume that my physics book is correct about existing theory, sir. My equations are referenced, sir : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14611571]

>>14604065
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14611575]

>>14603540
Yes, sir, it is totally stupid of humanity to overlook such a stupid mistake for so long.

[Anonymous No.14611819]

So there is not single asshole on this entire forum that is capable of measuring anything then. Is that what. I am supposed to believe. You bunch of wankers.

[Anonymous No.14612016]

I am trying to do something good for the world and everyone is hating me.

[Anonymous No.14612030]

>>14611819
So you say but you refuse to measure anything yourself (don't like that you did, if you really did you'd have published your exact data)

[Anonymous No.14612115]

>>14612030
I have proven my claim with my undefeated theoretical physics paper, sir.
I have also supplied independent experimental confirmation. The LabRat’s experiment perfectly confirms COAE. I have more than fulfilled the burden of proof. You literally neglect all the evidence and try to suggest I did not present any because of your evidence blindness. That is totally unreasonable, sir.

[Anonymous No.14612153]

>>14612115
When I let a feather go it doesn't accelerate at 9.81 m*s^-2 as F = mg predicts. It is theoretically wrong and experimentally a feather accelerates much slower than that so my conclusion is that F = mg is wrong. You must accept that because it is a conclusion of a logical argument.