THEORETICAL PHYCISIST MANDLBAUR REFUTES COAM IN INTERVIEW

File: 2.24 MB, 1672x954, mandlbaur.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

THEORETICAL PHYCISIST MANDLBAUR REFUTES COAM IN INTERVIEW Anonymous Fri Jul 29 04:54:02 2022 No.14709408 [Reply] [Original]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aUeKf4Wg7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aUeKf4Wg7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aUeKf4Wg7M
Mandlbros... we have won

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 04:57:20 2022 No.14709412 >>14709408 cringe why did you guys come here? can’t you just stay in youtube comment sections?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 04:57:32 2022 No.14709413 >>14709408 kino

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 04:59:03 2022 No.14709416 >>14709408 lol I always thought John is copy-pasting the same statements/rebuttals over and over again from some document because he's lazy but even when speaking he constantly repeats the same shit kek. Looks like genuine retardation

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 05:07:16 2022 No.14709422 >>14709408 >Asked to present his paper/argument >refuses to do so, just babbles on about how he's right

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 05:32:52 2022 No.14709450 >>14709408 2 minutes into the open discussion and Mandlbaur is screaming already

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 05:59:45 2022 No.14709483 >https://youtu.be/1aUeKf4Wg7M?t=3404 >56:44 kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 09:11:42 2022 No.14709709 >>14709408 Asian guy is obviously right but he's trying way too hard to appear smug

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 11:12:40 2022 No.14709866 >>14709709 Yeah, it looks like that guy has no idea how to properly deal with cranks, though Mandlbaur shouts at everyone regardless of how they speak once they disagree with him.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 12:30:03 2022 No.14710065 >>14709408 Oh my god, John is so angry all the time and seems to think screaming loudly somehow nullifies all the points the guy makes against him. Someone please give this ape his meds.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 12:40:52 2022 No.14710094 >Reddit faggots who have been obsessed with this man for literal years follow him to 4chan You lot are even more pathetic. He's mentally ill. What's your excuse? Kill yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 13:08:42 2022 No.14710176 >>14709483 damn

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 13:11:32 2022 No.14710184 >>14709408 This video is literally a representation of /sci/ >smart but smug east asians >retarded white schizos >dumb white boomers who can't recognize schizos

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 15:04:10 2022 No.14710517

>>14709408
Why does no one ever tell him that a small negative change in initial angular momentum will be magnified to a much bigger change in final angular momentum after the change in radius when he acts incredulous that friction and air drag could be responsible for the discrepancy in experiments?

Even if you assume that the loss of angular momentum is a one time event at the beginning (which is a calculation in his favor, since momentum is continuously lost as the radius is changed), you can see that the loss scales to the same constant as momentum.

ω2 = 100(ω1 - E) = 100ω1 - 100E
ω1 = 2 rps = 120 rpm
ω2 = 100(120rpm - E) = 12000rpm - 100E

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 15:05:56 2022 No.14710523 >>14709483 lmao

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:30:51 2022 No.14711129 >>14709483 Kek now I imagine this red gorilla face whenever I see him seethe here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:36:22 2022 No.14711139 >>14709483 also this https://youtu.be/1aUeKf4Wg7M?t=5086 (1:24:26)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:47:47 2022 No.14711159 >>14709483 >>14709408 So this is what profound mental retardation looks like

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 02:01:39 2022 No.14712186 >>14709408 I like being a /g/-tard I can just tell what software they are(n't) using and ignore them because they are retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:41:57 2022 No.14712681 >>14709483 >burden of disproof kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 06:52:50 2022 No.14712698 File: 284 KB, 473x428, 1642849614293.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14709483

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:03:13 2022 No.14712724 >>14709483 It's him who makes those threads here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:12:20 2022 No.14712746 File: 40 KB, 559x285, 1641449461495.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14712724 Yeah. For some reason he even posted about it on his personal facebook

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 07:20:10 2022 No.14712759

I will always remember John Mandlbaur as the perfect example of what happens when you fall for every single /sci/ meme at once, without carefully analyzing them first. He self-publishes his own "research". While I see nothing wrong with that in itself, as it is cheaper than paying peer-reviewed journals, it is just not checked, contradictory to his "philosophy". He started using every single shitty pseudointellectual, arithmetics-based proof, used a shitty idealised setup of dubious actual viability (like all maths-based physics proofs), then fell for the full 12,000rpm meme and went in even deeper. Then he started making videos shitting on angular momentum and praising angular energy, which is ironic considering he is not even a physicist by his own admission. He effectively spent years trying out, calculating and hopelessly trying to prove his meme theory to build what is, combined, effectively a shittier Newtonian dynamics, just like most of /g/ was doing in their "clever" MOND threads a year or two ago. Then he read the Unabomber manifesto and blindly accepted it without constructively analyzing it first, same with the anarcho-primitivist ideology that was all the rage about a year and a half on 4chan and 8ch. While he stated on his website that he "didn't browse 4chan much anymore" it was obvious this wasn't the case. Then he went and took the memes way too far, and unironically went to live in isolation. While I see nothing wrong in itself, the actual reason he did it is massive cringe. He has the mentality of someone 10 years younger than he is, yet he acts like a literal boomer jokingly criticizing "bad scientists" despite he himself being the worst example of Dunning-Kruger. He attacks "schizos" when it't painfully obvious he's deeply schizophrenic himself, as it was obviously self-directed criticism thinly veiled as an edgy dabbing video. He is a perfect example of someone you should avoid becoming at all costs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 09:59:37 2022 No.14712952 >>14712759 Pls respond

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:11:56 2022 No.14712965 >>14712759 Tru

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:12:26 2022 No.14712966 >>14712698 he looks supremely retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:13:56 2022 No.14712968 >>14712966 In that picture I believe I see some kind of really deep pain in him. I cannot help myself but feel bad for laughing at him somehow...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:15:09 2022 No.14712971 >>14712698 >>14712966 >>14712968 The expression is so weird. I can't tell if he's about to cry, laugh, or take a shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 10:54:53 2022 No.14713027 >>14712968 >>14712971 It's legit schizophrenia. We use this as an insult all the time, but this is the true face of a terrible illness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:13:46 2022 No.14713235 >>14712186 what's the best video call software?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:25:11 2022 No.14713246 >>14709422 The video is about my paper, so I have presented my argument you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:26:28 2022 No.14713247 >>14713246 see >>14712698 this mouthbreathing faggot is you, btw

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:26:35 2022 No.14713248 >>14709450 I screamed to prevent being laughed at uncontrollably and it worked. Jack proved me right twice and then failed to concede his obvious loss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:27:48 2022 No.14713253 >>14713248 nah you screamed because you're a low IQ ape with zero manners

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:29:13 2022 No.14713256

>>14709709
“Asian guy” proved my maths right twice and then began blurting friction against a contradiction and tried to adopt laughing in the face of defeat which I shouted at him to prevent. He has still failed to concede like a rational person must.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:29:34 2022 No.14713257 >>14713256 see >>14713253

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:30:42 2022 No.14713260 >>14709866 Please stop the ad hominem and face the fact that 12000 rpm which Jack agreed is correct, objectively falsifies COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:31:37 2022 No.14713263 >>14713260 So what is your rebuttal for the friction argument specifically, sir?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:31:46 2022 No.14713264 >>14710065 The “point” I was screaming was his attempt to laugh at me in neglect of the fact that he lost the debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:33:13 2022 No.14713266 >>14710184 I am schizo because Jack aggressive that my maths is right? Twice. ?? Seems to me that you are the irrational one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:35:40 2022 No.14713269 >>14710517 Wishful thinking made up nonsense is not science. 12000 rpm is wrong and my prediction of 1200 rpm is right. Who’s theory is better ? I don’t understand peoples willingness to be irrational.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:36:19 2022 No.14713270 >>14713266 Nah, you're the dumb white boomer but funny to see you think of yourself as a white schizo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:37:19 2022 No.14713271 >>14713264 There's no reason to scream when you're winning, you fucking ape. Be smug and make your opponent angry, don't fucking sperg out, retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:38:26 2022 No.14713273 >>14713269 Do you believe idealized formulae are impossible due to idealized conditions never ever being met?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:39:25 2022 No.14713275

>>14711159
Yes, Jack proves me right twice, then starts blurting friction against a contradiction and when pointed out that my introduction defeated his argument, tried to laugh uncontrollably in my face to escape conceding.
After I reprimanded home for that, he ran away with his tail between his legs.
But he still thinks he is right.
That is totally insane. You are right Jack is nuts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:39:56 2022 No.14713277 >>14713275 And yet you screamed like a fucking monkey.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:43:29 2022 No.14713284 >>14712759 This is nasty insulting ignorant prejudiced behavior. You are in denial of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and using ad hominem to slander me because you can’t defeat my paper. Please stop being unreasonable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:45:02 2022 No.14713288 >>14712968 You should be feeling stupid laughing at me because I won that debate. Jack proved me right twice and then started blurting friction against a contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:46:20 2022 No.14713293 >>14713027 Yes. A terrible illness which has overcome all of humanity, apparently. They can’t face the simple objective face that COAM is false.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:54:29 2022 No.14713309 >>14713288 No, I feel bad for you. You are seriously mentally challenged and unreasonably angry all the time. Your facial expressions are schizophrenic, to say the least.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:55:30 2022 No.14713314 >>14713293 Noether proved COAM right through pure mathematics.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:56:39 2022 No.14713318

>>14713275
>After I reprimanded home for that, he ran away with his tail between his legs.
You mean like a warrior after getting your arms and legs chopped and everyone is packing up and leaving the battlefield, you are yelling with your useless torso "Heh running away? Cowards!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 13:56:54 2022 No.14713319 >>14713284 Sir, have you considered making a thread on /pol/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:06:03 2022 No.14713338 >>14713269 Now that COAM is false, besides the moon moving at a constant velocity, what else have you found out?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:09:56 2022 No.14713353 >>14712968 >I see some kind of really deep pain in him. he's a shoot untreated schizophrenic these people spend most of every day very distressed

e Sat Jul 30 14:16:10 2022 No.14713366

>>14709408
I'm not surprised he repeated the exact same thing we went through multiple times.

Mandlbaur repeatedly refuses to acknowledge calculating energy put into the system. He refuses to acknowledge any external variables such as drag, friction, and so on. He declares conservation of momentum "wrong" by cherrypicking and isolating the claim absent all real-world factors, and if you get him to consider real-world factors he then dismisses the abstract case.

This is always the tapdance of narcissists. Claim one thing, hop to secondary claim, and hop between them throughout a conversation so you never feel cornered. Someone points out you put energy into the system to pull the string, he arbitrarily declares "momentum not conserved", even though that is exactly what is being conserved due to conservation of energy. The energy is conserved in the momentum.

I even walked through the force required to get 1200 RPM in that experiment, and he or one of the trolls repeatedly admits that he can't pull it that hard. So what does he do? Declare it falsified by claiming that conservation doesn't include energy put in. Which even on his cited physics page clearly depicts the force being accounted for in the graphic. He cherrypicks a simplified isolated example to avoid ever needing to actually consider the whole thing, and that's the whole game.

Isolate, cherrypick, deflect, dodge, ignore. Flat earthers, young earth creationists, john, narcissists in general. All the same game, always the same playbook.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:25:17 2022 No.14713389 >>14713353 :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:28:07 2022 No.14713402 >>14713353 >these people spend most of every day very distressed Makes sense. John constantly talks about how everyone hates him, how the world is insane, etc.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:28:31 2022 No.14713404

>>14713338
That people are having an insane mental illness. The name of that illness is called mass psychosis.
COAM is objectively false.
People do not want to accept the fact and so behave like you and ask evasive questions and appeal to tradition.
12000 rpm not enough discrepancy for you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:29:21 2022 No.14713408 >>14713404 Well have you found out anything new about physics with your theory?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:29:32 2022 No.14713409 >>14713319 Fuck off. Why are you harassing me?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:30:23 2022 No.14713412 >>14713409 What do you have against /pol/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:30:54 2022 No.14713414 >>14713353 Stop the ad hominem and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:31:44 2022 No.14713415 File: 171 KB, 410x428, 1630632110795.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14713414 >a-ad hominem!!!

e Sat Jul 30 14:31:54 2022 No.14713416

>>14713353
>he's a shoot untreated schizophrenic
>>14713389
It isn't schizophrenia. While schizophrenia also lends itself to schizophasia, narcissism is what lends itself to the methods I keep mentioning. It's very prevalent online, and fits John to a T. In extremes when pressed, and keep in mind narcissists aren't more intelligent than average, so they resort more and more to nonsense when pressed and all the "skull duggery" in the book. A schizophrenic in a schizophrenic break may be speaking nonsense, but it tends to be incredible nonsense like grand conspiracies, magic, mysticism, coincidences and so on.

Watch John, he's incredibly aggressive and VERY hostile when perceived as being laughed at. Projection, "blurt fictions" on his opponents, denigrate and degrade while declaring it "unacceptable" to even perceive anyone do that to him, etc. All traits of narcissism, not schizophrenia. The same goes for declaring everyone is harassing him. A narcissist is both a victim and unassailably genius depending purely on which context is most subjectively useful.

Basically, this is what you get with average or below-average IQ with narcissism. A more intelligent narcissist will be more crafty about it, but they follow the same format universally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:33:50 2022 No.14713428 >>14713366 “Calculating energy put into the system” is how I find a million percent increase in energy. Now concede that I have calculated the energy put into the system please because this is stupid?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:34:52 2022 No.14713432 >>14713402 No. I talk about 12000 rpm objectively falsifying COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:35:23 2022 No.14713433 >>14713432 like a dog licking it's arse in public.

e Sat Jul 30 14:35:53 2022 No.14713436

>>14713428
>Now concede that I have calculated the energy put into the system please because this is stupid?
It isn't a million percent increase in total. We've been over this, stop lying. I'm very familiar with narcissists and your games don't work on me.

You did not, have not, calculated the total energy you put into the system to achieve that. You only did half the work. We've been over this. Stop lying or deluding yourself. People have gone over this with you multiple times including in livestreams.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:36:09 2022 No.14713437 >>14713408 I can accurately predict a ball on a string demonstration and physics cannot, which is something important.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:36:47 2022 No.14713438 >>14713437 In the video you said your theory shows that the moon moves at a constant speed and does not accelerate. Any other predictions like these?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:37:11 2022 No.14713441 >>14713412 It is not suitable for discussing science moron now fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:38:13 2022 No.14713443 >>14713415 So you think that by showing everyone my missing tooth that you are saying something useful and important?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:38:21 2022 No.14713444 >>14713441 What other boards have you checked out besides /b/? Have you tried out /g/? What about /diy/? Ask them for a contraption that would prove COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:39:29 2022 No.14713447 >>14713443 It's supposed to quote you saying "A-ad hominem!!!" at the verge of tears. Your missing tooth isn't all that important

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:41:28 2022 No.14713454 File: 342 KB, 1280x958, 49D8397C-F987-4755-91E7-1DF0252DDBB6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14713416

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:42:46 2022 No.14713457 >>14713433 No, like a person who has discovered that angular momentum is not conserved. The fact that you don’t like it does not falsify the fact that COAM is falsified.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:43:36 2022 No.14713461 >>14713454 >anon says he's a narcissist >like the narcissist he is, he posts his Mensa card retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:45:07 2022 No.14713463 >>14713436 The final energy in the system is calculated in eq 19 to be a million percent increase in energy. Where does that energy come from?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:46:25 2022 No.14713465 >>14713454 IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense. Read chapter V of this https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and_Misinterpretations_of_Correlation_in_Social_Science_

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:46:50 2022 No.14713466 >>14713438 Is that one too difficult for you to comprehend or measure? I predict that a ball on a string demonstration reduced to half will double in angular velocity. Would you like to see a teacher confirm this precisely? Will that convince you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:47:08 2022 No.14713467 File: 35 KB, 564x823, 3523433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14713465 >IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense. Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:47:23 2022 No.14713469 >>14713416 It's gotten even more repetitive now... What horrible life he must lead

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:47:38 2022 No.14713471 >>14713466 Not even fighting with you, Sir. I am asking what you predict besides the ball on a string demonstration and the moon moving at a constant velocity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:48:43 2022 No.14713474 >>14713467 Proven in the document that I linked to in the post you quoted like the moron you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:48:54 2022 No.14713477 >>14713444 How about you here in sci address it like grown up reasonable people? If you cannot falsify my maths then accept that the conclusion is proven.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:49:51 2022 No.14713478 >>14713474 >j-j-just e-educate yourself Not an argument. Would you like to try again? :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:50:03 2022 No.14713480 >>14713447 Well why is it important to mock a person for pointing out that he is being attacked in evasion of his argument?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:50:40 2022 No.14713484 >>14713478 No, since I have no time to waste. Consider your post hidden

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:51:35 2022 No.14713488 File: 76 KB, 300x255, 532524.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14713484 >c-c-c-consider your post hidden!!! That's still not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:51:41 2022 No.14713489 >>14713477 It's falsified by Noether's Theorem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:51:51 2022 No.14713490 >>14713461 I am showing that i do not “have a low iq”. You are the narcissist for making that accusation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:52:43 2022 No.14713492 >>14713490 Eh, that card is too old and most likely counterfeit trash, just like everything in South Africa.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:53:04 2022 No.14713493 >>14713465 I am contesting the accusation that I “have a low iq”.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:54:16 2022 No.14713498 >>14713493 IQ is noise. Take the test again and you'll most likely score low, then high again, then low again, etc. Your own results only have a correlation of 80%.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:54:39 2022 No.14713499 >>14713469 The only repetition is the evasion of the simple objective fact that 12000 rpm is wrong and thus falsifies COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:55:41 2022 No.14713504 >>14713471 Why are you evading my proof?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:56:15 2022 No.14713508 >>14713504 I never contested it. I am asking what else you predicted since the 10 years of you finding that out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:56:40 2022 No.14713510 >>14713498 >IQ is noise. Take the test again and you'll most likely score low, then high again, then low again, etc. Your own results only have a correlation of 80%. Why are you lying?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:58:34 2022 No.14713515

>>14713498
link proof?
Also if this is true, is it possible that it could be a variation of test performance? I know I'd certainly do worse on, for example, the ACT if I hadn't woken up well that morning and drank a coffee and had no anxiety.

Is it possible that entering a calm, focused state for test taking is a bit like sleeping, where everybody is different and if it's not quite right your results are skewed?

Or, anon, are you just taking an online test over and over again?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:59:36 2022 No.14713520 >>14713515 I'm betting he's gonna link you to Goldbergstein's sociology blogpost.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 14:59:41 2022 No.14713521

>>14713489
If you can just present maths which contradicts my maths and say my maths is wrong because your maths contradicts my maths then I can do the same to your “Noether’s maths” by presenting my maths and saying Noether’s maths is wrong because my maths contradicts it. Please acknowledge that your argument is illogical?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:00:24 2022 No.14713524 >>14713515 >>14713520 Don't care about your schizophrenic delusions, retard. Read Chapter V of what I linked or fuck off

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:00:58 2022 No.14713527 >>14713498 I am definitely not reasonably described as “low iq”. Please stop evading the fact that COAM is false?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:01:11 2022 No.14713529 >>14713524 >what I linked >schizophrenic delusions Yeah, about that... what the fuck are you talking about, tranny?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:01:25 2022 No.14713530 >>14713521 No, Noether's theorem is trivially true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:02:14 2022 No.14713533 >>14713508 Why are you asking that? Do you believe that you are facing the fact that COAM is false by asking ad hominem questions?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:02:56 2022 No.14713535 >>14713533 I am not contesting COAM. I am asking you what you've done with your finding so far.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:04:12 2022 No.14713539 >>14713524 Stop evading the fact that COAM is false and fuck off yourself you ignorant evasive moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:05:14 2022 No.14713544 >>14713535 Yes. You are evading my proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:05:58 2022 No.14713548 >>14713544 I am not contesting it. I am asking you a question because the validity of your proof is irrelevant to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:06:51 2022 No.14713554 >>14713530 I am not here to discuss Noether. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM because 12000 rpm is trivially and laughably wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:07:15 2022 No.14713556 >>14713554 >I am not here to discuss Noether. Which is why you will never understand why you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:08:02 2022 No.14713559 >>14713548 Well if the validity of my proof is irrelevant to you then fuck off you closed minded ignorant moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:08:40 2022 No.14713562 >>14713559 low IQ post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:09:03 2022 No.14713563 >>14713556 I cannot be wrong because “Noether” as explained and you are being illogical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:09:41 2022 No.14713565 >>14713563 You are wrong due to Noether's theorem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:10:13 2022 No.14713566 >>14713562 Yes. Asking me evasive irrelevant questions and refusing to address the evidence is “low iq” behavior

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:10:43 2022 No.14713569 >>14713566 Let's say I accept the evidence. Would you then answer my very simple questions?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:12:52 2022 No.14713579

>>14713565
Nope, not a logical argument as explained.
You have to show false premiss or illogic in my paper.
Contradicting my conclusion is a formal logic fallacy.
It is also undeniably an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
Logical fallacy is illogical.
You lose if you abandon rationality. Concede and remain reasonable, sir.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:13:15 2022 No.14713580 >>14713579 No, you are wrong due to Noether's theorem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:14:06 2022 No.14713584 >>14713569 If you accept the evidence you would not be desperately trying to personally attack me in evasion of my paper.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:14:42 2022 No.14713587 >>14713584 show me where I attacked you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:15:07 2022 No.14713588 >>14713580 Not logical. Stop going i

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:15:43 2022 No.14713591 >>14713588 You claiming that the universe is anisotropic is illogical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:17:14 2022 No.14713595 >>14713587 I am preemptive of the personal attack that you are aiming towards with your ad hominem question. Please stop the ad hominem questions and acknowledge that angular momentum is not conserved?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:18:17 2022 No.14713596 >>14713595 >acknowledge that angular momentum is not conserved I already did. Now I ask you what you predict with that being the case.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:18:34 2022 No.14713598 >>14713591 I am not claiming anything of the sort. You are making up a strawman logical fallacy argument. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop going in circles.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:19:08 2022 No.14713601 Did he farted around 1:05:45 ? Fucking kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:19:28 2022 No.14713602 >>14713598 >I am not claiming anything of the sort. Yes, you are. If isotropy of space implies COAM and COAM is false, what does that mean for isotropy, my low IQ friend?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:22:44 2022 No.14713611

>>14713596
I predict that the angular momentum problem which has plagued scientists for half a century will be resolved.
I predict that we will be able to solve the “orbital prediction error” which shows our orbital mechanics to be incompetent. I predict a massive increase in scientific productivity especially in physics which will make huge strides forwards as soon as we accept our stupid mistakes and fix our idiocy and have an actual clue about what we are doing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:23:37 2022 No.14713614 >>14713611 Have you tried modelling the moon yourself?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:24:46 2022 No.14713618 >>14713602 No, I am not. I have simply proven that COAM is false. Face the fact and stop the appeal to tradition logical fallacy. You are literally abandoning rationality, sir. Please stop abandoning rationality and try to behave reasonably, sir?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:26:13 2022 No.14713623 >>14713614 Have you tried measuring a ball on a string and confirming COAE yet? My paper is proof. You have the burden of proof. Live up to it and stop trying to shift it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:26:44 2022 No.14713626

>>14713618
You don't seem to quite understand the issue, so please read the first chapter "Equations of Motion" https://ia803206.us.archive.org/4/items/landau-and-lifshitz-physics-textbooks-series/Vol%201%20-%20Landau%2C%20Lifshitz%20-%20Mechanics%20%283rd%20ed%2C%201976%29.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:27:50 2022 No.14713631 >>14713623 sir, see you said this >>14713611 >I predict that we will be able to solve the “orbital prediction error” Have you tried solving the error yourself?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:28:43 2022 No.14713635 File: 92 KB, 320x240, image_2022-07-30_152823877.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14709483

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:31:36 2022 No.14713643 >>14713631 No. I am an inventor, not a scientist. Now stop this nonsense?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:32:18 2022 No.14713645 >>14713643 Sir, if you could come up with a model that accounts for these errors, more people may believe you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:33:33 2022 No.14713648 >>14713635 If you measure this it will agree with my theory which is that it spins faster because angular energy is conserved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:35:30 2022 No.14713652 >>14713618 >>14713626 Chapter 2 too

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:35:50 2022 No.14713655 >>14713626 No, you don’t understand the issue. I have presented my paper and that is what has to be addressed. You saying “Noether” as if that magically defeats my paper, is Illogical. Please behave reasonably?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:36:31 2022 No.14713660 >>14713655 >Noether” as if that magically defeats my paper It does. Read the first 2 chapters and you will understand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:37:28 2022 No.14713662 >>14713645 People do not have an option to “not believe me”. If you cannot defeat my maths then you have to accept the conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:39:12 2022 No.14713665 >>14713662 Sir, more people may accept it if you were to accurately predict something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:39:28 2022 No.14713667 >>14713652 Nope. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and you illogically saying “Noether” as if your deity has a magic power that you can just say her name and magically neglect the evidence, is unreasonable behavior, sir.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:40:55 2022 No.14713672 >>14713660 No, you saying Noether does not point out any equation in my maths and explain the error within it, sir. Your argument is literally illogical, sir.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:41:48 2022 No.14713673

>>14713667
>>14713672
The meaning of this is the following: Conservation laws can be derived from symmetry. There is rotational symmetry (isotropy). Rotational symmetry proves COAM.

You say COAM is false, therefore, there exists no rotational symmetry (anisotropy). That's what the relevance of Noether's theorem here is. It's a mathematical theorem. If you can't point out an error in it you have to accept the conclusion

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:42:22 2022 No.14713675 >>14713665 I have accurately predicted the LabRat’s independent perfect confirmation of COAE. People don’t believe whatever the fuck they like to not believe. Irrelevant of rationality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:43:21 2022 No.14713678 >>14713675 >LabRat’s independent perfect confirmation of COAE Can you link me to it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:44:03 2022 No.14713681 >>14713673 You have failed to point out an error in my maths. Do you have double standards, sir?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:44:25 2022 No.14713683 >>14713681 https://youtu.be/04ERSb06dOg

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:46:48 2022 No.14713689

>>14713678 example 2. At 5:30 he announces his unbiased result which perfectly confirms COAM. After that he begins engineering and no longer doing science. His scientific result perfectly confirms my prediction. The highest for if scientific proof. Any science in his right mind would immediately accept the new theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:47:22 2022 No.14713691 >>14713689 Sir did you forget to post a link? I can't find "LabRat" on YouTube.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:49:04 2022 No.14713695 >>14713683 Again, that does not contest any equation in my maths and so is literally evading the evidence like a flat earther behaves, sir. Please face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:49:21 2022 No.14713696 >>14713695 Watch the video https://youtu.be/04ERSb06dOg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:50:06 2022 No.14713698 >>14713691 Example 2: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:51:08 2022 No.14713704 >>14713696 You address my paper and stop wasting my time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:52:51 2022 No.14713708 >>14713704 Watch the video. It also explains this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy%E2%80%93momentum_pseudotensor You still seem to live in a classical world

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:55:46 2022 No.14713718 >>14713704 Your result, if correct, would mean that the universe is anisotropic. The consequences would never be the same

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:56:33 2022 No.14713721 >>14713704 Why do you always ignore Noether's theorem?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 15:57:43 2022 No.14713724 >>14713704 >>14713681 This basically refutes your math https://youtu.be/BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 16:09:23 2022 No.14713753 >>14709483 I just spilled my drink

>>	e Sat Jul 30 16:20:03 2022 No.14713773 >>14713454 And? Posting a fake card doeesn't mean much.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 16:53:25 2022 No.14713836
File: 236 KB, 1000x2349, quantifier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14713443
>>14713480
>If I just ad hominem myself I can distract from the fact that none of this shit, math or otherwise actually explains anything.

No one said anything about your crooked teeth other than you, Nigel.

>>14713490
>He posted the numbers card!

Typical mathematician. What you don't have is an explanation. Tell us what the numbers mea

>>	e Sat Jul 30 16:56:19 2022 No.14713846 >>14713836 >Typical mathematician. Trust me, John is not fluent in mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 16:57:15 2022 No.14713848 File: 14 KB, 184x184, 2a0f7ac766b5cb3a1d7b47eb70eee3940767d8d3_full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14712698

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:14:07 2022 No.14713893 >>14713648 Here's a redpill you're not ready yet to swallow, John https://www.math.fsu.edu/~wxm/Arnold.htm Math is a part of physics

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:29:34 2022 No.14713916 >>14713893 You are the one refusing to swallow the 12000 rpm falsifies COAM pill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:30:30 2022 No.14713919 >>14712698 hahaha fucking australians always ruining this board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:30:46 2022 No.14713921 >>14713848 Stop the childish mockery and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:31:48 2022 No.14713926 >>14713846 Yet you cannot fault my maths. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:32:27 2022 No.14713928 >>14713926 refuted in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:32:50 2022 No.14713929 >>14713836 http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:33:27 2022 No.14713931 >>14713929 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBR_eOnZ-UQ You have to accept the maths if you cant refute it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:34:28 2022 No.14713936 >>14713773 My card is not fake. Why do you imagine that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:35:00 2022 No.14713937 >>14713936 because you're obviously fucking retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:36:20 2022 No.14713942 >>14713724 To defeat my maths, you have to point out an equation number and explain the error. You are presenting imaginary evidence, sir.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:38:03 2022 No.14713947 >>14713942 Noether's Theorem proves COAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBR_eOnZ-UQ If you cannot disprove the math you have to accept the conclusion

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:38:21 2022 No.14713949 >>14713721 I do not ignore Noether’s theorem. I have addressed and defeated “Noether’s theorem”. It is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and therefore your argument is illogical. You ignore my theorem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:39:04 2022 No.14713951 >>14713949 No you haven't, or else you'd accept the conclusion that you believe there is no rotational symmetry

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:39:25 2022 No.14713953 >>14713718 Yes, that is what I am telling you. Angular momentum is not conserved. Obviously the results of that are catastrophic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:40:11 2022 No.14713955 >>14713953 So how will you cope with rotational symmetry not existing now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:40:29 2022 No.14713957 >>14713708 Address my paper you circular weaseling Wanker or fuck off because this is trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:42:48 2022 No.14713963 File: 48 KB, 828x570, EvDYvjNU4AU0slp[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14713929 >>14713931 >"Thought Experiment" >>14713942 >You are presenting imaginary evidence, sir.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:42:59 2022 No.14713964 >>14713955 No interest. I am an inventor not a scientist or mathematician. I am simply informing the scientific community that they have fucked up. Not my fault. Stop punishing me for your mistakes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:44:05 2022 No.14713967 >>14713964 Ahahah you just claim rotational symmetry doesn't exist and wave this major nonsense away by saying "not my problem". You're so fucking retarded. Go on, faggot, THINK! THINK what it would mean for there to be no rotational symmetry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:44:20 2022 No.14713968 >>14713963 Make an argument or fuck off you recirculating defeated arguments over and over again like a weasel going in circles, asshole.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:44:31 2022 No.14713969 Maybe physics works differently in Australia because they're upside down?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:45:12 2022 No.14713973 >>14713968 Retard does your room change when you move your head? Holy fuck imagine denying isotropy of space

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:45:42 2022 No.14713974 >>14713967 No. I am telling you without any doubt that angular momentum is not conserved and you are literally insulting me in denial and neglecting the evidence like a flat earther.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:46:18 2022 No.14713975 >>14713974 >angular momentum is not conserved which implies rotational symmetry doesn't exist as long as you fail to refute Noether's theorem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:46:31 2022 No.14713976 >>14713974 >like a flat earther You're a round earther?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:46:44 2022 No.14713977 >>14713973 Imagine denying 12000 rpm???

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:47:41 2022 No.14713980 >>14713977 Imagine denying rotational symmetry. Is a circle suddenly not a circle anymore once you rotate it? You're the most retarded faggot I have ever met on this site

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:48:11 2022 No.14713982 >>14713975 So what. My paper stands undefeated. If you cannot falsify my maths you have to accept that the conclusion is proven.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:48:55 2022 No.14713983
File: 155 KB, 640x916, 1654678346934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14713968
>Make an argument
Give me something to actually argue over and then we'll talk you fucking sophist.

>you recirculating defeated arguments over and over again like a weasel going in circles,
I have defeated nothing because no actual argument is there worth discussing. You may as well just start having flame wars over more interesting imaginary bullshit at this point, like your favorite show on TV or something. Then it would actually be interesting at least, but this? What straw are you trying to grasp at here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:49:00 2022 No.14713984 >>14713982 >So what Your "paper" leads to a massive contradiction by virtue of which it must be false, dumbfuck. There obviously is rotational symmetry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:49:13 2022 No.14713985 >>14713976 You are an angular momentum conserver which is one step below a flat earther.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:50:29 2022 No.14713988 >>14713982 And if you cannot disprove Noether's theorem, your "paper" would imply that when you rotate an object, it wouldn't stay the same because space is apparently anisotropic in your schizo head

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:51:03 2022 No.14713989 >>14713984 No, two theories contradict each other. That is all. One cannot falsify the other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:51:32 2022 No.14713990 >>14713985 And you're the brain-fucked retard who thinks every direction is not equal >>14713989 >two theories contradict each other Prove that Noether's theorem is false.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:52:10 2022 No.14713991 >>14713983 I apologize for assuming you had done your homework. My argument is here. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:52:36 2022 No.14713994 >>14713991 And it's clear non-sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:53:44 2022 No.14713995 >>14713988 I don’t have to falsify Noether because Noether does not falsify my maths. As we have discussed in circles. Please stop going in circles?

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:54:34 2022 No.14713996

>>14713995
>Noether does not falsify my maths
Noether is far more rigorous than you and shows your retardation would lead to something that obviously isn't the case. You don't even know what a conserved quantity is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:54:48 2022 No.14713997 >>14713990 Do you have double standards, sir?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:55:39 2022 No.14714001 >>14713997 Stop with the ad hominem and address Noether's theorem

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:56:22 2022 No.14714003 >>14713996 Nope. My maths is more rigorous. Nobody can falsify my maths so by definition it is perfectly rigorous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:56:32 2022 No.14714005 >>14713995 >Please stop going in circles? I'm trying but I can't. I just keep going, almost like there's a physical law at play

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:56:51 2022 No.14714008 >>14714003 You don't even know what a conservation law is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:57:36 2022 No.14714010 >>14714001 It is unreasonable to ask me to address Noether’s theorem when I present you mine. You are simply evading the evidence

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:57:42 2022 No.14714011 >>14712759 >/g/ >MOND threads lmao link it please

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:58:37 2022 No.14714012 >>14714005 Nope, there is only your bias which prevents you from facing the evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:58:47 2022 No.14714013 >>14714010 Dumbfuck. Noether's theorem implies COAM by virtue of rotational symmetry existing. Just watch the fucking video I linked you

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:59:18 2022 No.14714014

>>14713942
To defeat your maths one but has to point out that your equations don't actually represent your chosen example.
simple as
your problem occurs before your first equation.
That you insist on an equation being identified is just you being evasive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:59:40 2022 No.14714016 >>14714011 Stop being a circular evasive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 17:59:56 2022 No.14714018 >>14714012 Wait, maybe I can stop spinning if I pull my arms in. Nope, I just went faster! Fml

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:00:09 2022 No.14714019 >>14714016 stop replying with nonsense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:01:10 2022 No.14714023 >>14714012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBR_eOnZ-UQ

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:01:45 2022 No.14714025
File: 48 KB, 716x580, 1616975594099.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14713991
Hey basically I'm just not gonna argue over it (your thought experiment with no basis in reality!). I know...UGH I know...I'm sorry. It's just that I'm not going to make up an argument over a non issue. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:01:47 2022 No.14714026 >>14714013 Yes, so one theory contradicts another. How many times do we have to go over this? Two contradictory theories can never falsify each other. You are not allowed to pick the one you like. That is unscientific and religious behavior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:02:24 2022 No.14714028 >>14714026 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/ Read all of them

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:02:49 2022 No.14714029 >>14714018 You spin faster because angular energy is conserved and angular momentum conservation is falsified if you measure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:03:25 2022 No.14714032 >>14714026 >theory It's a THEOREM not a THEORY you fucking retard. A mathematical theorem has WAY MORE CREDIBILITY than a theory. Shit like 1+1=2 is a theorem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:03:51 2022 No.14714034 >>14714019 Address my paper http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:04:26 2022 No.14714035 >>14714034 rebuttal 1 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:05:16 2022 No.14714037 >>14714025 I calculate the existing mainstream physics example and compare to reality and show that COAM has no basis in reality, sir.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:05:42 2022 No.14714039 >>14714037 rebuttal 1 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:06:17 2022 No.14714042 >>14714035 So address my paper then. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:06:45 2022 No.14714045 >>14714042 rebuttal 3 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:07:51 2022 No.14714049 >>14714039 That does not point out any equation number, so it is neglecting my proof like a flat earther.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:08:02 2022 No.14714050 File: 1.18 MB, 480x400, shrug.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14714037 >COAM has no basis in reality Wonderful. So I really don't have to argue over anything then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:08:28 2022 No.14714051 >>14714049 rebuttal 1, 3, 11 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:09:05 2022 No.14714053 >>14714042 Your equation number 3 is fucking stupid and gay

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:09:09 2022 No.14714054 >>14714045 >>14714049

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:09:40 2022 No.14714055 >>14714054 rebuttal 3 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:10:13 2022 No.14714058 >>14714050 COAM has no basis in reality which means that COAM is false. There is nothing to argue about because 12000 rpm is objectively wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:10:56 2022 No.14714059 >>14714058 rebuttal 1, 2, 3, 11 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:11:14 2022 No.14714060 >>14714051 >>14714049

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:11:57 2022 No.14714062 >>14714060 see >>14714059

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:12:23 2022 No.14714065 >>14714055 >>14714049 Going in circles again

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:12:58 2022 No.14714068 >>14714065 rebuttal 1, 2, 3, 11 https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ug36jo/rebuttals/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:13:26 2022 No.14714071 >>14714062 >>14714049 Going in circles again

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:13:59 2022 No.14714072 >>14709483 my fucking sides

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:14:28 2022 No.14714073 >>14714068 >>14714049 Stop being circular and address my paper.

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:14:53 2022 No.14714075
File: 11 KB, 297x313, tiring.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14714058
COAM has no basis in reality which means that COAM is false
Wonderful. So really it is you who argued over nothing then.

>There is nothing to argue about
So stop talking then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:17:09 2022 No.14714080 >>14714072 You are stupid if you think it is funny that Jack can’t face the fact that he proved my maths right twice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:17:26 2022 No.14714083 File: 263 KB, 450x394, 1637389568166.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14709483 >can't even prevent himself from laughing at his own words yeah, he's trolling, just look at this goofy fucking face

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:19:09 2022 No.14714090 >>14714075 I have won the debate which is why you behave like an uncommunicative child. Falsify my maths or fuck off. Harassment is not acceptable behavior. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:20:09 2022 No.14714093 >>14714090 You started screaming like an ape and just hung up in the middle of it like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:20:11 2022 No.14714094 >>14714083 I am serious as hell and you need to fuck off with your character assassination you piece of shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:21:31 2022 No.14714100 >>14714094 >I am serious as hell Yet you can't stop laughing at your own words like a bad comedian

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:22:01 2022 No.14714104 >>14714093 I shouted after Jack proved my maths right twice and refused to concede lik a grown up. He was trying to escapes by the slander of laughing uncontrollably in my face in evasion of the fact that he lost.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:23:12 2022 No.14714106 >>14714104 Nah you started screaming like an ape after he dared to laugh at your lack of teeth

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:23:15 2022 No.14714107 >>14714100 Fuck off witb the character assassination you piece of shit. Face the fact that you cannot defeat my paper and concede like a grown up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:24:17 2022 No.14714111 >>14714106 Jack lost. He is in denial. I am right. Truth can’t be defeated. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:24:36 2022 No.14714115 File: 72 KB, 313x258, 1652000974172.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14714107 >>14714111 You just can't help yourself. You're such a bad troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:36:49 2022 No.14714132 >>14714012 what did you mean by this >>14713803

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:44:52 2022 No.14714147
File: 58 KB, 555x450, 41j23u[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14714090
>I have won the debate
You told me to argue over it and then you admitted that there was nothing substantially to argue over in the first place and thus negated your own argument over what you believe has no basis in reality in the first place. I literally did nothing but accurately describe what you did, and you got butthurt over it.

It's the same reason why lawyers won't object or will half ass their client through what everyone knows will be a mistrial. Any actual tryharding goes to waste because it doesn't matter and nothing said has any meaning other than to further be used against you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:55:38 2022 No.14714176 what the fuck is this board?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 18:58:44 2022 No.14714188 >>14714147 You haven't defeated my maths. Stop being a faggot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 19:42:56 2022 No.14714317 >>14713263 he does not see posts asking about the friction argument. the most he ever reacted iirc was that friction does not matter because his equations do not include it (hence don't depend on it?).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 20:08:30 2022 No.14714381 >>14714188 >COAM has no basis in reality which means that COAM is false >You haven't defeated my maths. Lol, I didn't have to. You did for me

Anonymous Sat Jul 30 21:29:35 2022 No.14714631

>>14714013
>>14713314
>>14713489
>>14713565
>>14713947
1. Why would you use Noether's theorem to prove COAM instead of just writing down the relevant E-L equation for a particle subject (only) to a central force? And why don't you work in polar coordinates?
2. Do you seriously expect Sir John to understand Noether's theorem? LMAO. As far as I know, the guy doesn't even know basic calculus since he refuses to compute the integral for the work the string does on the ball when he reduces the string's length.

>>	e Sat Jul 30 22:21:47 2022 No.14714773 >>14713936 Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 23:15:17 2022 No.14714887 I miss the timecube guy, his shit was way more creative than mandlbaur

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 23:19:08 2022 No.14714898 >>14714887 Also his arguments were more fun than 'find the error in my high school math or I'm right'

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:25:17 2022 No.14715037 >>14713235 Making your own using FFmpeg, but barring autism jitsi.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:32:31 2022 No.14715049 >>14709408 >THEORETICAL PHYCISIST L0Lno fgt pls

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 00:38:03 2022 No.14715061

normal /sci/ old gag here. i’ve been ignoring this drama but too much of it has leaked into other threads not to notice. after watching this mandelbaur saga play out i find it funny. this is a case of 1) a pseud posts a batshit idea on /sci/, nothing new. i’m thinking of tooker, montano, that computer programmer who thought he disproved michelson-morley, or that linguistics guy who called physics “fragile”. 2) new variables enter this drama—the perpetrator is a) a boomer and b) has little to no obvious mental illness. 3) the perpetrator posts here openly in a way that is grumpy-old-man rather than schizo , but has incredible persistence. 4) the new variables associated with points 2 and 3 mix to create the most potent triggering cocktail for autists seen here in a while. i guess spergs can safely ignore schizos like the neurotypic /sci/ anons can but this one just pushes the autism buttons like none before

a psych anon should write this up as a case study on how different kinds of pseudoscience are less or more triggering of autistic meltdowns

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:09:14 2022 No.14715117 >>14715061 >little to no obvious mental illness ignoring his obvious anger issues, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:14:09 2022 No.14715126 >>14715061 >a psych anon should write this up as a case study on how different kinds of pseudoscience are less or more triggering of autistic meltdowns seems like something i'd read with interest, the flat earth stuff would be king for sure

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:17:56 2022 No.14715136

>>14715117
i think anger issues aren’t considered a mental illness by themself, unless the DSM authors changed their minds again. the only anger issues i see in this debate attributable to mental illness are the numerous autistic meltdowns by his critics e.g. the anon who refused to turn on his video in the end of OP’s youtube video

for the record, mandelbaur is laughably wrong and stupid and the autists are right (albeit none of them has made a good quantitative argument yet which is surprising, they are just screeching) but the level of discourse has been terrible on both sides. i respect mandelbaur for unrelentingly triggering autistic rage, takes a lot of resilience to stand your ground when a bunch of spergs are having epic meltdowns at you day after day

please just ignore him. that’s the mature thing to do

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:26:10 2022 No.14715152

>>14715136
>anger issues aren’t considered a mental illness
True, but they are a symptom.
>autistic meltdowns by his critics
This is not about them, Anon.
>i respect mandelbaur for unrelentingly triggering autistic rage
Odd source for "respect", but chacun à son goût, as they say in southern Louisiana.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:36:45 2022 No.14715168 You know the only way to stop this is to stop giving him attention right? Doesn't matter how many times you refute his bullshits, schizos are going to schizo.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:42:59 2022 No.14715182

>>14715168
in this case i think it’s that old grumpy uneducated boomers are going to be old grumpy uneducated boomers. mandelbaur doesn’t seem to be a schizo imo.

i think Leonard Susskind has written about how even though his father was an inspiration for him in his pursuit of physics, that he later realized his dad held “quack beliefs”. it’s common. i respect my father and i thought he knew what he was talking about when he repeated a common falsehood you hear to this day on /sci/ (that Bell inequality experiments imply faster-than-light communication) but once i learned more i realized he was just not grasping the facts. old folks can definitely hold erroneous scientific ideas without suffering schizophrenia

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:51:45 2022 No.14715198

>>14715182
>old grumpy uneducated boomers
e.g. my Grandpa, with sixth-grade education
>held “quack beliefs”
He was convinced for years that a motor-generator "perpetual motion" device was possible,
until I spent two days with him, explaining energy conversion and unavoidable losses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:13:24 2022 No.14715364 >>14715168 The only way to stop this is for you to face up to the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Instead of personal insults in evasion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:16:42 2022 No.14715373 >>14715136 They can’t ignore me because I am right and they can’t defeat my paper because of that. That is why they are triggered. They are literally shitting themselves that I get through to people and that is why they are censoring me using slander.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:19:33 2022 No.14715385

>>14715126
The pseudo science is the claim that angular momentum is conserved when we have zero measurements confirming it. We still think “it spins faster” is evidence and are neglecting the 12000 rpm which falsifies all of the “it spins faster” evidence, which is all your evidence. All you evidence is falsified by 12000 rpm.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:20:19 2022 No.14715387

>>14715198
>old folks can definitely hold erroneous scientific ideas without suffering schizophrenia
Like believing there's proof that light travels, let alone has a speed?

>>14715061
>who thought he disproved michelson-morley
How do you disprove a null result?

>>14715364
>>14714058
>COAM has no basis in reality which means that COAM is false
>But I'm going to go full retard and falsify an already false statement
See this is the mistake Tooker and..what was his name..Nathan(?) made when "falsifying" the MM experiment.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:20:36 2022 No.14715389 >>14715117 The mental illness is your literal inability to acknowledge that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:21:38 2022 No.14715393 >>14715061 Except that you are neglecting the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:24:21 2022 No.14715399 >>14715049 I have never claimed to be a physicist. The fact that some triggered psycho makes stupid statements meant to personally insult me proves that I am right and professors of science are incapable of defeating my maths

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:25:22 2022 No.14715405 >>14714898 If you can’t falsify the maths then you must accept the conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:30:17 2022 No.14715420 >>14714887 My discovery is not “creative”. That is why none of my papers can be defeated.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:31:40 2022 No.14715425 >>14714773 No. Prove your imaginary claim it is fake you fraud. Also accept the conclusion of my maths since you are incapable of defeating it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:33:24 2022 No.14715430 >>14714631 I have calculated the integral of the work done you circular ignorant fuck. Eq 19 is that work done.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:34:26 2022 No.14715431 >>14714381 Yes you do have to fault my maths before you can reject it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:36:59 2022 No.14715436 >>14715430 clueless faggot

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:37:45 2022 No.14715441 >>14714317 I have addressed and defeated every post about “friction” in circles for years. Rebuttal 1,2,5,7,9,20,21 and 24: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:39:37 2022 No.14715444 >>14714147 I told you that you have no argument of substance. Ie you are the loser, but you are just irrationally in denial. Grow up and face the simple obvious fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:41:16 2022 No.14715447 >>14715441 >>14713926 refuted in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:41:23 2022 No.14715449 >>14714132 I did not say that. What I am sure was meant though is that the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, means that string theory is false too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:42:17 2022 No.14715451 >>14715449 How the fuck is string theory false you retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:42:44 2022 No.14715453 >>14714115 Rebuttal 19 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:44:09 2022 No.14715455 >>14714631 I just wanted John to see falsifying COAM would imply anisotropic space according to Noether's theorem, which is clearly retarded, yet he doesn't seem to care. He says Noether's theorem is falsified without proof.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:44:15 2022 No.14715456 >>14715451 Because COAM is false.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:45:10 2022 No.14715460 >>14715456 Explain what this has to do with string theory

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:45:24 2022 No.14715461
File: 519 KB, 818x894, ec56y8dz8ns61[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14715405
>>14715399
>"Because there is no scientifically verified empirical evidence confirming that angular momentum is conserved in a variable radii system, it remains an hypothesis and we can correctly refer to this as assumption"

>>14715420
>That is why none of my papers can be defeated.
You're like a reporter, you accurately describe things that are situational and cherry picked. You take a general law to the extreme, but you don't apply all the extremities and details. You don't account for hysteresis, gravity, etc. that would nullify this thought experiment from ever being reproducible in the first place.

>>14715431
>Yes you do have to fault my maths

No I really do not have to do a goddamn thing about your reified maths over what you clearly elaborated as "false" in the first place. Why would you waste the time? You could have easily have written just that sentence I quoted above and have been done with it, but you implicate yourself hubristically by acknowledging it and applying your basic math skills instead of simply asking for the proof yourself. Or even better...providing an actual explanation or a better way of understanding COAM.
But no, it's just "Hurr here's a thought experiment with muh maths". Fuck you, fuck your thought experiment, fuck all thought experiments and fuck math. Lets see your fat ass ball and paddle me some free energy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:45:46 2022 No.14715462 >>14715455 You are making up wishful thinking appeal to tradition excuses and neglecting the simple obvious fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Face the fact instead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:47:51 2022 No.14715466 >>14715461 My maths falsifies COAM. That declaration is that my maths is right and COAM is false. Do you have mental issue that you twist this in your mind? My maths is right. 12000 rpm is wrong. COAM is wrong.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:48:46 2022 No.14715468

>>14715462
Noether's theorem is above COAM. Are you still too retarded to get it? Falsifying COAM NEITHER refutes nor affirms Noether's theorem.
Let's see if you get the following conditional statements:

if is COAM verified: Noether's theorem implies isotropic space
if is COAM falsified: Noether's theorem implies anisotropic space

Again, it's a theorem that has universal validity, just as 1+1=2 has.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:49:49 2022 No.14715471 >>14715460 String theory is premissed upon the conservation of angular momentum. Whether directly or indirectly. Therefore the fact that COAM is false makes string theory unreliable and unreasonable. Very simple.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:50:07 2022 No.14715472 >>14715471 >String theory is premissed upon the conservation of angular momentum prove it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:51:11 2022 No.14715476 >>14715468 Nature is above Noether’s theorem and nature agrees that angular energy is conserved.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:51:41 2022 No.14715478 >>14709483 >the local schizo can't keep himself from screaming this is so funny

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:51:49 2022 No.14715479
File: 293 KB, 1498x1119, 1654042318322.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14715466
>My maths falsifies COAM
No, as you stated in you paper:
"Because there is no scientifically verified empirical evidence confirming that angular momentum is conserved in a variable radii system, it remains an hypothesis and we can correctly refer to this as assumption"

Please comprehend the fact you can't falsify what isn't true in the first place so that you don't have to waste literally years of your life "disproving" something for absolutely no reason. Knowing this is half the battle.

>My maths is right
And I don't give a shit about you math. I don't even give a shit if it's right, not even wrong or flat out wrong. You never even had to do it in the first place is what's the problem here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:52:13 2022 No.14715480 >>14715472 Nope. I have proven that COAM is false and you are in total denial.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:52:41 2022 No.14715481 >>14715476 >Nature is above Noether’s theorem Prove it. Prove that nature is above theorems, such as 1+1=2

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:53:26 2022 No.14715486 >>14715472 not mandelbaur but string theory does assume all the standard conservation laws. if you want to fight a pseud you better know actual science first to avoid making a fool of yourself

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:53:41 2022 No.14715487 >>14715478 Yes, it is funny that Jack proved me right twice and then started blurting friction against a contradiction and everyone is in denial of the fact that Jack well and truly lost.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:54:15 2022 No.14715489 >>14715480 >claims something >refuses to prove it there you go, that's all you can do. >>14715486 never claimed the opposite. I only want John to substantiate his claims.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:55:52 2022 No.14715491 >>14715479 I can very obviously only falsify something that is untrue in the first place you twisted psychotic nutcase. You are literally telling me that my proof that COAM is false, is wrong because COAM is false. You dumb fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:57:00 2022 No.14715493 >>14715425 low IQ post

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:57:43 2022 No.14715495 >>14715489 You are directly claiming the opposite otherwise there is no reason to ask for substantiation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:58:10 2022 No.14715496 >>14715495 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:59:17 2022 No.14715499 >>14715493 When trying to get through to a low iq person, it is necessary to make low iq posts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:59:43 2022 No.14715500 >>14714188 >You haven't defeated my maths. Stop being a faggot? it's really worrisome how you see this as a battle.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:59:58 2022 No.14715501 >>14713256 You didn't understand a single thing the guy did, btw.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:01:38 2022 No.14715503 >>14715496 Either you are contesting the claim you ask for substantiation of, or you are a troll. Please stop trolling. It is dumb behavior?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:01:51 2022 No.14715505 >>14715499 Instead of wasting 16 hours in this shithole, how about you flesh out your theory and manage to accurately predict orbital movement as you said you could?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:01:53 2022 No.14715506

>>14715489
>never claimed the opposite. I only want John to substantiate his claims.
it’s kind of a disingenuous tactic to demand anyone to know the details of string theory when discussing basic classical physics. few people know about string theory and if you need a reference on angular momentum i could refer you to the 73 paper by Goddard, Goldstone, Rebbi and Thorn on canonical string quantization. where angular momentum is as always a fundamentally conserved quantity. but this is really irrelevant to any arguments about classical physics

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:03:25 2022 No.14715510
File: 7 KB, 261x159, 1640413282862.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14715491
>I can very obviously only falsify something that is untrue in the first place you twisted psychotic nutcase.

That's not how burden of proof works you absolute retard.

>You are literally telling me that my proof that COAM is false, is wrong because COAM is false.

And also completely pointless, yes.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:04:11 2022 No.14715512

>>14715501
He directly re-calculated both of the predictions in my paper and agreed with both of my results and then started blurting “friction” against a contradiction despite the fact that I had already defeated that behavior in my introduction. If you imagine anything else than that fact, then you are the one who misunderstood everything Jack said.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:05:25 2022 No.14715515 >>14715505 I have never claimed to be an orbital scientist. Liar. I have fulfilled the burden of proof stop trying to shift it crook.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:06:34 2022 No.14715517 >>14715510 So you agree that COAM is false and somehow this justifies your neglect of my proof that COAM is false?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:08:24 2022 No.14715519 >>14715500 What is “worrisome” is that you neglect the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and make personal attacks instead.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:11:55 2022 No.14715525

>>14715517
>So you agree that COAM is false
>If I can see some empirical evidence, as you state it lacks then maybe I would believe it. Your math, is meaningless to me.

>and somehow this justifies your neglect of my proof that COAM is false?
I don't need justification. The people claiming COAM is true needs to justify the claim. I don't have to do shit. You don't have to do shit. But don't let me stop you from wasting more years of your life on this description you'vedeluded yourself into.
Imagine, trying to disprove somebody else's claims that were never true in the first place. What is it with you boomers and wanting to just...work for free? It's a fucking psychosis I swear to god.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:13:36 2022 No.14715527 >>14715519 tell me, is your “12000” number something you have observed? or is it coming from some equation? does that equation always hold? why or why not?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:15:18 2022 No.14715532

>>14715506
The point is more so that John keeps on making far-fetched statements that may or may not be true but he never has proof of it being so. Like in the video, he just claims Kepler's 2nd Law is wrong when faced with it as evidence for conservation of angular momentum. His argument is that Kepler used data that is not rigorous for his proof thereof without realizing all later astronomers managed to confirm the law by themselves. He's just a really dense person that is too afraid to say "I don't know".
You're definitely right that I need to read more on string theory, though. I have only read halfway through the Polchinski book, so the paper is appreciated.
>>14715503
No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:00:35 2022 No.14715630 >>14715527 Rebuttal 8: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:05:05 2022 No.14715638

>>14715525
Maths is the closest thing to actual proof available to science. If you cannot fault the maths you have to accept the conclusion.
I understand you are having emotional issues with that, but denying that maths is proof is unreasonable.
You are the one suffering psychosis, sir.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:06:46 2022 No.14715643 >>14715532 The “far fetched” claim is that we can simply neglect the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:07:48 2022 No.14715648 >>14715643 5th grader reading comprehension

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:08:49 2022 No.14715649 >>14715638 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:10:11 2022 No.14715651 >>14715648 Five year old closing her eyes tight and blocking her ears and mumbling internally to herself so she can’t hear the fact that Father Christmas does not exist. 12000 rpm falsified COAM. Grow up and face the fact.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:10:25 2022 No.14715652 >>14715651 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:11:26 2022 No.14715656 >>14715630 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:11:49 2022 No.14715658 >>14715649 Single syllable denial That is about as scientific as a flat earther stamping his foot on the ground and saying “THE EARTH IS FLAT”.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:12:26 2022 No.14715659 >>14715658 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:13:22 2022 No.14715661 >>14715659 >>14715658

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:14:33 2022 No.14715663 >>14715661 >>14715658 I have won.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:17:04 2022 No.14715669 >>14715663 If you imagine that you win by being the most irrational, sure. In reality though, you can’t win a scientific argument by behaving like a flat earther. Retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:17:24 2022 No.14715670 >>14715669 I have won.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:18:06 2022 No.14715672 >>14715670 Stop trolling and face the simple fact that COAM is false.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:18:28 2022 No.14715673 >>14715672 I have won.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:22:12 2022 No.14715678 >>14715672 Join me in this thread >>>/pol/389032344 I want to argue with you there. I have found an error in eqn 14

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:22:30 2022 No.14715680 >>14709709 If he is obviously right, then his victory in the debate should be equally obvious, except it wasn't. The asian guy lost.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:22:59 2022 No.14715681 >>14715680 You have lost

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:23:13 2022 No.14715682 >>14715680 reply to me here >>>/pol/389032344

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:24:36 2022 No.14715685 >>14715658 >>>/pol/389032344

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:25:38 2022 No.14715686 >>14715651 Friction >>>/pol/389032536

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:28:51 2022 No.14715694 >>14715658 yeah /pol/ would really be a better place for you to discuss this at

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:32:15 2022 No.14715701 >>14715678 do it john >>14715672

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:37:59 2022 No.14715709 >>14715630 you have been refuted >>>/pol/389032344

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:47:01 2022 No.14715723 >>14714034 >>>/pol/389032344

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:07:13 2022 No.14715754 >>14715723 I think that if there was a genuine refutation there, then you would have brought it here. Trying to divert the discussion to an unsuitable forum is sign of supreme arrogance to the point of stupidity. Rather concede like a real scientist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:57:22 2022 No.14715861 >>14715441 we have been through your "rebuttals" last time. you say that friction does not matter because the equations you choose to model the system do not feature it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:03:37 2022 No.14715870 >>14715694 not john, but why? why do you want to move these threads to /pol/? John's the most retarded and fun schizo on the site right now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:39:05 2022 No.14715931 >>14715861 No, I say that my equations are referenced and you have to accept that friction is considered negligible in the demonstration for centuries. Stop shifting the goalposts.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:52:37 2022 No.14715951

>>14715931
>you have to accept that friction is considered negligible in the demonstration for centuries
Appeal to tradition is not good science. Take friction into account in your theoretical model and demonstrate mathematically whether it is negligible or not (hint: it's not)

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:12:49 2022 No.14715984

>>14715951
so i'm a retard but if i understand this right, this guy is claiming conservation of angular momentum is false because he intentionally ignores friction in a simplified calculation and then wonders where the energy goes in an experiment? is that right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:14:18 2022 No.14715987 >>14715984 It's exactly right. An example of an ice skater from a textbook for high schoolers ignores friction to simplify the equation and John thinks that must mean friction is negligible in real life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:16:41 2022 No.14715989 >>14715987 that's pretty fucking funny lmao

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:18:13 2022 No.14715991

>>14715984
he calculates that if you spin a ball on a string at ~45km/h and reduce the radius by a factor of 10, then by conservation of angular momentum the new speed will be ~450km/h
then he proceeds to claim that 1. friction is negligible here and 2. in the real world the ball wouldn't spin that fast, therefore conservation of angular momentum is wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:30:41 2022 No.14716003 >>14715987 No, I say that the fact that physics has assumed friction negligible for centuries in the equations that it must be the case. You are in denial and shifting the goalposts.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:31:13 2022 No.14716004

>>14715991
>then he proceeds to claim that 1. friction is negligible here and 2. in the real world the ball wouldn't spin that fast, therefore conservation of angular momentum is wrong
so has he not actually done the experiment?
does he provide any reason why friction would be negligiable?
if the string is fixed to the ball and not connected by a bearing/axle, wouldn't the string twist up thus exerting a force opposite to the ball's rotation?
that seems like a pretty intuitive source of friction if you ask me chief.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:31:43 2022 No.14716006 >>14715991 This is strawman logical fallacy argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:33:36 2022 No.14716010 >>14715984 I predict 1200 rpm using my theory and physics, using the. Theory of COAM directly and purely predicts 12000 rpm. Who do you think is closest to reality?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:34:43 2022 No.14716011 >>14715951 Stop being intellectually dishonest and obtuse. My argument is reductio ad absurdum so I present the traditional physics. Dishonesty is bad science.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 09:45:56 2022 No.14716091
File: 282 KB, 751x545, 1658411729101035.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"Hurr durr le amgular emergy" okay dE is M*deltaphi
M is dL/dt
So dE = dL/dt *deltaphi
Considering delta phi is not 0 Energy can only be conserved if dL/dt is zero which means... L stays constant
WOW. INCREDIBLE. MIND BLOWN
/thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 09:57:21 2022 No.14716112 >>14716091 So your argument is literally that 12000 rpm contradicting reality can be neglected because you have some other maths which also agrees that 12000 rpm is right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 10:18:56 2022 No.14716125 >>14715931 ooh, they are "referenced", are they? what does this even mean and why should I care? there is a tradition of ignoring friction where it can be safely done so. there is no tradition of ignoring friction blindly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 11:28:39 2022 No.14716220 >>14716125 You saying “friction” in the face of a margin of magnitude discrepancy is called grasping at straws logical fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 12:26:09 2022 No.14716310 >>14716220 I've blown you the fuck out in the /g/ thread. Refute that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 13:07:10 2022 No.14716400 >>14716310 No, you have presented the same delusional nonsense and are literally impersonating me which is a clear sign you have lost your mind and can’t defeat me logically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 13:08:48 2022 No.14716403 >>14716400 retard reply to my argument in that thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 13:53:49 2022 No.14716478 >>14716403 No. Fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 13:54:43 2022 No.14716479 >>14716478 so have you watched the video on Noether's theorem?

e Sun Jul 31 14:07:42 2022 No.14716497

>>14715425
>No. Prove your imaginary claim it is fake you fraud.
I just did. You cannot validate your card. If you had a genuine card you'd know the website lists memberships, and you can verify membership ID. The same number you conveniently try to obscure on the card. Nobody by your name exists that I can tell in that country's org.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 14:41:21 2022 No.14716559 >>14715984 It is worse. If you bring up any physics other than what he presents he will tell you that you are falsely appealing to tradition, address his paper and falsify his equations.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 14:49:54 2022 No.14716580

>>14716003
Physics does no such thing, dumbass.
For teaching purposes to introduce students to concepts the physics is broken into phases.
This shit is physics 101.
When introduced to newton the first example used is a perfect one.
Two objects collide. Nothing else exists in the example. Literally nothing else.
That example only serves as a starting point from which other concepts and physics builds on.
Fucking physics 101.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 14:52:23 2022 No.14716583 >>14716220 YOU have to show that friction can be neglected in YOUR example. That I's YOUR responsibility. To not address it is illogical, dishonest bad science.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math