Crackpot thread

[Anonymous No.14768414]

Post crackpots and delusional morons who claim to be scientists in this thread

Pic related

[Jealous No.14768423]

The plane of precession in this series of pendulum experiments I did would have rotated in the clockwise direction if I had done them in the northern hemisphere.

[Jealous No.14768427]

I got counterclockwise pressecion about six times in a row with different pendula or taking down and restringing them to avoid systematics. This suggest the area I was in that looked like Long Island, NY, North America was in the southern hemisphere. My guess is that I did these experiments in Long Island, NY, Antarctica.

[Anonymous No.14768447]

this is Alex Foreman, who seems to be one of Mandlbaur's biggest reddit groupies who migrated here. what's alex's specialty? i can certainly tell you it's nothing mathematical or scientific.

[Anonymous No.14768455]

>>14768414
This isn't kiwifarms. Let go of low IQ anons. We can't let ourselves to bully Mandlbaur to suicide.

[Anonymous No.14768559]

>>14768455
>Mandlbaur
sadly, he doesn't belong in this thread, not having claimed to be a scientist but rather an inventor and businessman.

[Anonymous No.14768607]

https://nesa.osu.edu/people/foreman.230
https://www.reddit.com/user/AZForeman/submitted/
https://twitter.com/azforeman

[Anonymous No.14768621]

>>14768423
>>14768427
I'm surprised people still believe the pendulum experiment proves the coriolis effect. It's obviously not a closed, frictionless system. It's influenced by starting conditions.

[Anonymous No.14768628]

wallace thornhill, probably the most lucrative conman in the pseudoscience industry

[Anonymous No.14768636]

the man with the most retarded subreddit on the internet

[Anonymous No.14768641]

ken wheeler who comes here occasionally to shill himself but denies that it’s him

[Anonymous No.14768653]

the boomer newager guru of woo

[Anonymous No.14768662]

Fred Alan Wolf, close associate of fellow crank Jack Sarfatti, but Fred a.k.a. Doctor Quantum wins on the crank scale since he literally made a movie with JZ Knight aka Ramtha, the crazy “channeler” lady who says she gets possessed by the spirit of Ramtha the Atlantean from 50 thousand years ago and gives long lectures as the Ramtha persona. that is literally who Dr. Quantum gets his paychecks from

[Jealous No.14768665]

>>14768621
I did six times in a row with six different pendula and/or configurations. The two gifs I posted in this thread were completely different setups, iirc. I also did it with a few other setups with different weights/locations and stll got CCW precession every time. If I was introducing systematic with shoddy procedure, it wouldn't have been 100% CCW.

[Jealous No.14768667]

>>14768641
no

[Anonymous No.14768668]

>>14768665
>>14768665
Out of curiosity, what do you think your experiment shows re: pendulums? That the Coriolis effect doesn't exist, or that it's misstated? I've never even seen you post here before so it's new to me.

[Anonymous No.14768669]

>>14768641
Imagine the absolute butthurt it takes to make this website
https://kenswrong.com/

[Anonymous No.14768674]

Pierre-Marie Robitaille, medical doctor who sends emails to physicists and astronomers saying the sun is solid

[Jealous No.14768677]

>>14768621
I obtained CCW six times in a row (possibly more than six) with six different pendula and/or configurations. The two gifs I posted in this thread were completely different setups, iirc. In another experiment, I used a symmetrical weight without a handle strung from a different support and got CCW. I did it several times in this walkway which was covered by a grating in a sidewalk and I made several different connections to the grating and kettlebell each time to rule out bias from torsion in the line or torque at the mount point. I got CCW precession every time. I used steel wire to hang the weight, and sometimes parachute cord. If I was introducing systematics with shoddy procedure, it wouldn't have been 100% CCW. It would have been random. I am a well trained physicist, btw.

[Anonymous No.14768683]

>>14768677
Yeah but what does it mean? What's the implication of this result, aside from Foucault's Pendulum being misunderstood?

[Jealous No.14768689]

>>14768668
rewritten here:>>14768677

My experiments show that the experimental setting which appeared to be Long Island, NY, North America was actually a Truman Show-style mockup of Long Island somewhere in the southern hemisphere. My conjecture is that they have a lifesized mockup of the 48 states, Mexico, and some of Canada and other places built in Antarctica. My speculation is that "the simulation theory" refers to people living in the mockup in Antarctica more so than it refers to living in an alien's computer.

[Anonymous No.14768692]

>>14768674
He's not a medical doctor, he's an engineer and retired university professor whose specialty is electromagnetism and MRI. Also he doesn't believe the sun is solid, he believes the photosphere has clouds of liquid-metallic hydrogen, a specific arrangement of liquid hydrogen atoms that has specific emissive qualities.

[Anonymous No.14768699]

>>14768692
clouds of liquid?

[Jealous No.14768707]

>>14768683
I did not do the Foucault experiment. That experiment uses the small angle approximation in the equations of motion to daignose the pendulum's lattitude from the period of the precession. Obviously, the small angle approximation is not appropriate for the motions in my gif and I was not able to construct a good replica of the Foucault experiment with a very long pendulum rigidly suspended. Rather than diagnosing the lattitude from the period of precession, I did a simpler experiment to diagnose the hemisphere from the direction of precession. The CCW precession suggsts I did these experiments in the southrn hemisphere despite my environment suggesting Long Island, NY, North America. The rapid precession in the gifs suggests to me a location quite near the south pole but the equations of motion are difficult to solve outside of the small angle approximation and I have not invested the time and effort to numerically integrate them, or to find the full solutions in the literature. Indeed, I have no record of the periods of precession in my experiments at this point because these sped up gifs are the only records I retained.

[Anonymous No.14768708]

>>14768699
Yeah you know, a vapor.

[Anonymous No.14768711]

>>14768708
a vapor is not a cloud of liquid anon

[Anonymous No.14768714]

>>14768711
Clouds are agglomerations of liquid in a vaporous state. I was using colloquial language because it's simpler than saying that liquid metallic hydrogen forms in a specific pressure gradient in the region of the photosphere, and from it a specific spectrum of light is emitted.

[Anonymous No.14768718]

oh i forgot Klee Irwin, the snake oil salesman and convicted fraud who runs “Quantum Gravity Research” which is just a think tank for borderline schizos

[Anonymous No.14768722]

>>14768714
clouds are made of droplets of liquid suspended in gas. vapor is not that, vapors are in the gas state

either way Robitaille is a crank and wrong and floods physicists inboxes which is a major tell

[Anonymous No.14768738]

for good measure i should add Garrett Lisi who does actually have a PhD in physics says he developed a grand unified theory, got a chapter on him in Sabine’s book, and gets occasional media attention… but in reality his GUT was debunked almost immediately because it had a mathematical error, plus his physics PhD was in the biophysics of how dolphins swim and had nothing to do with elementary particle physics. (surprise surprise the biophysicist sucks at group theory)

he has a cool little physics resort in Hawaii and occasionally he lures some legitimate physics PhD students to come and hang out, but it’s a sham. it’s just an excuse to hang out in Hawaii.

his GUT is a literal fraud and so his he, and the fact that Sabine devoted so much of her book to this fraud shows you how questionable she is too

[Jealous No.14768750]

To try to do the Foucault experiment, I tied a loop into a steel cable and strung it across a gap next to a stairwell in a tall parking deck at a mall. I then tethered that cable with several more transversely-ish connected cables and tensioned them as much as I could with me meager equipment to make the support rigid. I used a regular, round 25lb gym weight supported symmentrically through the hole in the center and I mounted a centered indicator needle on the bottom. The pendulum was strung above a grid drawn on the ground so I could observe minute, slow precessions divorced from the non-small angle rapid precessions in my previous experiments. (I'm not sure how non-small angle motions affect things since I haven't seen the full EoM.) However, once I started the pendulum, the upper mount point was bobbing around quite a bit so it was not a good experiment. After that, I did some more experiments in the hall behind my hotel (gif setting.) At that point, I began to observe 100% CW precession in each instance. I never again obtained CCW. This suggests that my captors moved me or put a gyroscope in my pendulum to prevent me from continuing to expose their $100,000,000,000,000 lie with my $40 experiment: "the khechari mudra" due to "catching" them.

[Jealous No.14768764]

I studied physics in college for almost ten years before getting expelled due to rape allegations about 1 year before I would finished my PhD. I have an MS and a BS, and my speculation is that the main point in my wrongful expulsion was to disconnect me from a social professional network in advanced of being kidnapped by the USA and transported while unconscious to the slave hole in Antarctica.

[Jealous No.14768766]

I also have a "unified" theory.

[Anonymous No.14768767]

>>14768722
nope
water vapor is very very different from steam
how does it feel to be wrong?

[Jealous No.14768769]

I have a nice mathematical treatise as well.

[Anonymous No.14768771]

honorable mentions:
Stephen Wolfram
Eric Weinstein
Gary the Optimist
Like Smith
Nathan Rapport
Victor Marazieguos or whatever
that pajeet dude from a few years ago
clamped circumcised and vaccinated anon
can’t build muscle anon

[Jealous No.14768773]

>>14768767
I would say these are not "very very different" but do reflect two different thermodynamic phases. Overall, steam and vapor are about as similar as two different things can be.

[Anonymous No.14768775]

[Jealous No.14768777]

>>14768771
>clamped
This meme was about kicking me out of college and calling me a failure.

>>14768773
pic is tldr

[Jealous No.14768778]

>>14768777
>>14768777
>>14768777
TLDR!

[Anonymous No.14768779]

>>14768771
Why Nathan Rapport and Eric Weinstein? Weinstein is just some random Jew grifter and Nathan is essentially just being talked down to because relativity is a sacred cow.

[Jealous No.14768782]

>>14768779
>Weinstein is just some random Jew grifter
PDF of this paper here: https://vixra.org/abs/1307.0075

[Jealous No.14768789]

>>14768782
The Big Bang didn't happen
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
>It is just exactly what I and my colleague Riccardo Scarpa predicted based on a non-expanding universe, with redshift proportional to distance. Starting in 2014, we had already published results, based on HST images, that showed that galaxies with redshifts all the way up to 5 matched the expectations of non-expanding, ordinary space. So we were confident the JWST would show the same thing--which it already has, for galaxies having redshifts as high as 12. Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, if it is assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance.

A non-expanding universe (or one whose expansion does not accelerate) with redshift proportional to distance is what I supposed in my first paper in 2009. This paper is called SCP-001 now.
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-001

[Anonymous No.14768791]

>>14768773
steam will fuck you up, water vapor can be inhaled into your lungs
big difference

[Anonymous No.14768795]

>>14768775
is that the LessWrong guy?

i mean his stuff isn’t even really science, and to the extent it is it’s in meme fields like AI and cognitive science which are basically bullshit pseud fields entirely, tbqh

LessWrong imploded when Room’s Basilisk happened. that entire community had a crisis over a silly sci-do thought experiment, revealing that their entire community was uniformly afflicted by non-negligible mental illness/disorder. the fact that Yudkowski personally censored things because of the Basilisk collective chimpout was the swan song of the community. even on /sci/ if you’ve been here for a while you’ve witnessed how that whole strain used to be there but it has died

and good riddance

[Anonymous No.14768798]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A
might as well post a source for educational purposes

[Jealous No.14768800]

>>14768795
>his stuff isn’t even really science,
You'll notice that no one was talking about hypersonic missiles before they suddenly appeared in late stage field testing around 2016-ish. This is due to my 2013 solution to classical electrogravity.

[Anonymous No.14768803]

>>14768795
Well there's also the fact that he's a literal cuckold.

[Anonymous No.14768807]

>>14768779
Eric Weinstein is an honorable mention because even though he has some very smart and interesting things to say. and i like that, his “Geometric Unity” thing is kind of a joke. even his paper on it, he added a note that “this is purely entertainment” and the theory is basically a jargon-wrapped bullshit nothingburger.

Rapport because he has some very basic physics errors and he’s so sure of himself; surprise he is a CS guy and knows nothing about physics so what do you expect. he’s also low-effort in that he spans his shit but only like once every month or so, which is like below the threshold for anons to actually care so he keeps spouting his bullshit lowkey enough to keep it going without inspiring the rage of autists (unlike mandelbaur)

[Jealous No.14768810]

The people who were nay-saying my research fell behind and now they are having trouble catching up due to reasons such as pic related. Although the fake laser was shopped in to make this gif appear fantastical, people who know things might recognize the flawless
[eqn]x(t)=x_0+v_0t_\tfrac{1}{2}at^2[/eqn]
motion when the more advanced craft smashes the gas on its electrogravity drive at the end. This is what they were talking about when all those USAF hypersonic missile tests failed.

[Jealous No.14768816]

>>14768810
>x(t)=x0+v0t12at2
oh, that's unfortunate :/

Anyways, this is also what they mean when they say the US Navy has "a battleship." One is also able to properly phrase that in terms of Q (my uncle David) vs the Deep State.

[Jealous No.14768827]

[Jealous No.14768833]

>tfw Adolf Hitler was right

[Anonymous No.14768839]

>>14768833
jon can you just stfu? you’re just spamming at this point. it was fun when you peppered in posts but now you are flooding. and btw no you’re not hitler’s son

[Jealous No.14768845]

I have the same name as my father and my grandfather.

[Anonymous No.14768851]

I haven't been around in a while. When and why did Tooker become Jealous?

[Anonymous No.14768865]

>>14768807
>Eric Weinstein is an honorable mention because even though he has some very smart and interesting things to say. and i like that, his “Geometric Unity” thing is kind of a joke. even his paper on it, he added a note that “this is purely entertainment” and the theory is basically a jargon-wrapped bullshit nothingburger.
Yeah that's fair.

[Jealous No.14768867]

[Anonymous No.14768991]

>>14768851
ever since Mandlbaur started posting

[Anonymous No.14769023]

The simulation theory is really about whether or not they have constructed a nightmarish replica of the USA in Antarctica. I did some pendulum experiments whose consistent results of counterclockwise precession indicated a location in the southern hemisphere despite the appearance of my environment seeming like Long Island, NY, Antarctica. I tried to get sunburned one day and I could not. This suggested that the light in the sky was not the sun, but rather only a replica of the sun emitting in the visible and thermal EM bands, but not the more energetic UV band. After noticing a distinct lack of rain around "Atlanta" in the summer of 2018, I checked the NOAA rainfall data. Kt said Atlanta had gotten almost twice as much rain as usual in July/August 2018, about 10 inches total, but I did not see a quarter inch of rain in "Atlanta" during those months. Also, I asked a dozen or more cops if I was in Antarctica and they all told me yes. Furthermore, the gangstalking problem is more readily explained by Antarctica being populated with a clone slave army of gangstalkers than by the natural population of the USA in North America unanimously moonlighting as gangstalkers.

[Anonymous No.14769029]

>>14769023
Jon dude come on. you think they made a replica Atlanta in antarctica? we can’t even get homeless people out of San Francisco. just snap out of it bro.

[Anonymous No.14769030]

>>14768867
fucking based

[Anonymous No.14769031]

>>14768810
i recognize that after-effects button
your gif has no power over my autism

[Anonymous No.14769032]

>>14768692
>the sun is supposed to be a solid
nobody is stupid enough to think that the sun is a fucking solid you retard, what kind of bait is this? who precisely is this bait for? why would you write this?

[Anonymous No.14769038]

hello el arcon, i hope you're doing well. im not one of your gangstalkers but it would be a dream job. i imagine myself rifling through your papers, taking photos of them, and learning all the secrets of the universe and the government as a categorize them later. i can only imagine what you haven't shared with us yet. fbi hit me up, i'm cheap and experienced.

[Jealous No.14769058]

>>14769029
I think they probably made at least three down there which can be easily distinguished by the rodents that run around downtown at night. One has mice, one has normal rats, and one has huge rats.

[Jealous No.14769064]

>>14769038
Gangstalking is when the FBI hijacks your body with CNS implants to pilot you like a vehicle. A lot of gangstalkers seem not to like it and make joyful noises when I talk about putting them out of their misery.

[Anonymous No.14769096]

>>14769032
I think you replied to the wrong guy. He's refuting the one who claimed Robitaille thought the sun was a solid (because obviously he doesn't).

[Anonymous No.14769121]

>>14769032
>nobody is stupid enough to think that the sun is a fucking solid you retard
You deeply underestimate crackpots.

https://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

[Anonymous No.14769426]

>>14768991
Why jealous?

[Jealous No.14770051]

[Anonymous No.14770131]

>>14770051
Your said “fuck the system” and Mandlbaur did exactly that and you are now jealous, is that it?

[Anonymous No.14770159]

The guy that's always posting his black hole video in threads.

[Anonymous No.14770164]

>>14768414
Stop assassinating his character, you stinking cunt!!!

[Anonymous No.14770610]

>>14768807
>Rapport because he has some very basic physics errors
What are his errors?

[Anonymous No.14770625]

[Anonymous No.14770647]

crothers is very good and published his correspondence with professional scientists

[Jealous No.14770722]

Physicists talk about physics. Pseuds talk about science.

[Anonymous No.14770748]

>>14768771
The anon who thinks he's talking to fucking ants.

[Anonymous No.14770974]

>>14770625
Definitely the biggest crackpot mentioned. You win.

[Jealous No.14771048]

The Time Travel Interpretation of the Bible
>https://vixra.org/abs/2104.0068
We describe the Biblical work of ages as a time travel program for saving humanity from extinction. God's existence is proven as a consequence of the existence of time travel, which is supposed. We present the case that Abraham's grandson Jacob, also called Israel, is Satan. We make the case that the Israelites are described as God's chosen people in the Bible despite their identity as the children of Satan because God's Messiah is descended from Abraham through Satan. They are chosen as the ancestors of the Messiah rather than as Satan's children. We propose an interpretation in which God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac to prevent Isaac from becoming the father of Satan. We suggest that God stayed Abraham's hand above Isaac because preventing the existence of Satan would also prevent the existence of Satan's descendant the Messiah. The history of the Israelites is summarized through Jesus and Paul. This paper is written so that the number of believers in the world will increase.

[Jealous No.14771058]

>>14768677
>>14768766
>>14768800
>>14768833
>>14770722
http://gg762.net/d0cs/TheWeatherVane__PAPER__20210224.pdf
My inability to get a book deal on my novel is the source of the clown world meme. The novel itself is the source of roasties, the lulz boat, and some others.

[Anonymous No.14771109]

>>14768707
>Pole
You're close. Keep digging. Consider that the Earth doesn't have poles. You're close.

[Anonymous No.14771112]

>>14770625
>>14770974
Christ, you sound like seventy year old Florida women on a republican facebook page.

[Jealous No.14771141]

This one's about Karen Miller turning me down in favor of Traven, the manager.

[Anonymous No.14771166]

>>14771112
I didn't know you posted on 4chan, Doctor.

[Anonymous No.14771184]

>>14771166
>I didn't know you posted on 4chan, Doctor.

[Anonymous No.14771187]

>>14771184
Selfies go on /soc/. I'm not interested in taking the Trump Vaccine thanks.

[Anonymous No.14771196]

>>14771187
I only post selfies on /hm/ because I am gay.

[Anonymous No.14771211]

>>14771196
I'm surprised you even like Fauci. Did you know he's responsible for bogus AZT recommendations that killed tens of thousands of gay men despite no clinical evidence of effectiveness against GRIDS?

[Anonymous No.14771218]

>>14771211
>I'm surprised you even like Fauci
I don't even care about Fauci. Actually I knew about the AIDS Fauci decades before this covid thing. Just because some of us don't care doesn't make faceberg-tier MyPillow American posts any less cringey.

[Anonymous No.14771263]

>>14771218
Well if you agree he's a crank and a murderer then why are you so mad?

[Anonymous No.14771285]

>>14768641
No, I deny he should be mentioned (for your own benefit)
>>14768669
My sides are out of the solar system right now at the though that I may be partially responsible for this.

[Anonymous No.14771286]

the anon who eats heavy metals

[Anonymous No.14771287]

>>14768669
Haha oh wow, this page is the most insane NPC-tier bugman shit I've ever seen. A RationalWiki editor wrote this.
>"no longer have time"
ahahaahah imagine believing this
https://kenswrong.com/2022/06/07/climate-why-kens-wrong/

[Anonymous No.14771290]

>>14771287
you're reeling off crackpot buzzwords

[Anonymous No.14771298]

>>14771290
Do you actually think we're living through a "climate extinction" or whatever stupid buzzwords the media is using this decade? Sheesh. Believing any of that stuff makes you mentally incapable of calling anyone a crank.

[Anonymous No.14771305]

>>14771298
can you post an argument that isn't a fallacy? so far, you have posted an argument to incredulity and a straw man.

cheers

[Anonymous No.14771308]

>>14771305
I didn't intend to make an argument, I was just mocking a plebbitor website owner. Cranks don't deserve refutation because their hysterics are self-refuting.

[Anonymous No.14771310]

>>14771308
vaxxies will all drop dead in dec 2020, fellow stalker

[Anonymous No.14771312]

>>14771310
uh... thanks I guess?

[Anonymous No.14771752]

>>14771308
But Mandlbaur is right that a ball on a string does not do 12000 rpm, how is that “self-refuting” anon?

[Anonymous No.14771765]

>>14771752
Mandlbaur is correct empirically in a very specific case, but wrong at almost everything else when it comes to angular momentum.

[Anonymous No.14771809]

>>14771752
Because he tries to use COAM on an experiment where it doesn't apply. Garbage In - Garbage Out.

[Anonymous No.14771902]

>>14768677
Have you ever used a fishing line or any other solid, non-twisted cord? One of the causes of the precession I can thing of is the torque of the cord as it's being stretched out by the weight due to the unwinding of the fibers/threads. I can't remember which way ropes are typically twisted so I don't know if it would twist in this direction.

[Anonymous No.14772183]

>>14768641
>>14768636
>>14768628
there is no one on this board even 25% as intelligent as these three. seethe more tranny psued

[Anonymous No.14772191]

[Anonymous No.14772198]

>>14772191
Came here to post this.

[Anonymous No.14772221]

>>14768414
>delusional morons who claim to be scientists
what about deluded braindead senile?

[Anonymous No.14772229]

>>14772221
He also promised to cure cancer btw

[Anonymous No.14772314]

>>14770625
>>14772191
>>14772221
cope chuds

[Anonymous No.14772327]

and all his cohorts

[Anonymous No.14772510]

>>14771809
>>14771765
Here is professor young contradicting your grasping at straws and shifting the goalposts, slithering, slimy excuses.
He says that the ball on a string demonstration is “en example of conservation of angular momentum”, retards.

[Anonymous No.14772513]

[Anonymous No.14772591]

>>14772510
He's not the sole authority or the sole representative of scientific consensus. Just because he says that it doesn't make it so. It's very clear he's talking about an idealised case to demonstrate to his students.
I haven't seen a single person using this shitty experiment as direct proof of conservation of angular momentum who's related to academia and has experience with laboratory work. Anyone else experimenting with angular momentum typically uses a completely different setup.

[Anonymous No.14772623]

>>14772591
He is talking about the actual real life example that he actually performs
>>14772510
As he is busy doing in the photograph, retard.
Do you always make up fantasy realities?

[Anonymous No.14772739]

David Sinclair is one of the biggest scammers out there. Surprised he hasn't been posted.
See vid for a short review of the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFnD27ffqE

Also Ray Peat resveratrol out as a scam almost as soon as it was released, and wrote an article on it that was published, but Big Pharma went ahead and bought the rights to resveratrol, only to discover later it was a scam.

Many, many things in the supplements and drug industry are similar scams.

[Anonymous No.14772794]

>>14768414
>>14772591
Here is another crackpot who is delusional and a REALscientist and teaching that a ball on a string demonstration conserves angular momentum when it disproves COAM and agrees in reality with COAE.

[Anonymous No.14773136]

>>14772794
You think making proper measurements is evil or something so go play with flat earthers and let real scientists do science.

[Jealous No.14773165]

>>14771902
The parachute cord was non-twisted and I think the steel wire was non-twisted. However, the point you raise is entirely stupid because I repeated the experiment several times, always disassembling the pendulum and reconstructing it, specifically so as to avoid systematic biases such as torque due to a twisted line. The results were always CCW during the first week or so, and the results were all CW after that. If systematics of the sort you suggest were contrubiting, they would have contributed randomly from one experiment to the next so that CCW and CW results were intermingled. This is not what I observed and I am well-trained physicist competent to avoid poor experimental procedures such as unwanted torques. I observed CCW about six times in a row over the course of about a week and then when I got moved (or my pendulum got replaced with a gyroscope) I observed all CW for the remainder of my experiments. The lack of back and forth between CCW and CW, which I have already cited in this thread leading to my citation of your point as stupid, indicates that unknown sources of error were not the dominant effect in my experiments and that, indeed, the rotation of the Earth was the dominant effect.

[Anonymous No.14773181]

>>14773165
What purpose would someone have to move you?

[Anonymous No.14773187]

>>14773165
>they would have contributed randomly
Well no, cord fibers are typically twisted in one way so the torque exerted by the untwisting motion when the cord is under tension would be always the same regardless how many times you reassemble the apparatus.

[Anonymous No.14773193]

>>14773136
Mandlbaur took measurements and they proved that professor Lewin conserved angular energy and disproved COAM.
The real scientists are busy refusing to measure a ball on a string. Are they now “flat earthers”?

[Anonymous No.14773195]

>>14773193
You don't need to pretend to be someone else. It doesn't make you look any more credible.

[Anonymous No.14773204]

>>14772513
Why did it take so long to post him?

[Anonymous No.14773218]

>>14773195
My name is Anon, just like yours Anon. I have no need to speculate about who you are, why do you speculate about who I am?
Could it be that you are afraid to face the argument?

[Anonymous No.14773251]

>>14773218
It's because everyone knows that you are either John pretending to have credibility through people thinking he is correct or someone pretending to believe John because you think it's funny.
The second option is funny and more power to you. But you are probably John in which case it's pretty sad although not as sad as wasting many years of your life peddling a crackpot theory on the internet to the point of mental illness.

[Jealous No.14773316]

>>14773181
To undermine my ability to belie their $100,000,000,000,000 falsehood with my $40 experiment.

[Jealous No.14773334]

>>14773187
The results were always CCW until they started to be always CW using the same materials. You are stupid and you should kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.14773346]

>>14773334
Are all schizos like you and John?

[Anonymous No.14773378]

>>14773193
You mean the same professor that performs an actual experiment with data measurements that confirm COAM?
John, do you really want me to post that video link, again?

[Anonymous No.14773391]

>>14773334
sounds more like you proved coriolis doesn't exist and the earth is stationary.

[Jealous No.14773431]

>did you account for the elven magic of elder blood?

[Anonymous No.14773432]

>>14773378
Did he ever watch the video even?

[Anonymous No.14773437]

>>14773432
I doubt it. Anytime he responded as if he was addressing that video his comments come across as if he was replying to a different video.
Cherrypicking, lol.

[Anonymous No.14773901]

>>14773251
Nope. It is literally because you are evading the fact that prof Lewin confirms COAE.
You are afraid of the truth. Anon.

[Anonymous No.14773909]

>>14773316
Falsehood? Which falsehood?

[Anonymous No.14773912]

>>14773346
Mandlbaur has not told anyone to kill themselves. Has he?

[Anonymous No.14773918]

>>14773378
Yes. The same professor who did the standard scientific community behavior when informed that his original unbiased result confirms COAE.
Began yanking to confirm his bias and neglecting the fact that he falsified COAM and literally demonstrates that COAM is impossible to verify convincingly and repeatably.

[Anonymous No.14773932]

>>14773918
bla bla bla, debunked by Noether. Now concede.

[Anonymous No.14773934]

>>14773193
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ

[Anonymous No.14774076]

>>14773934
You present evidence which supports COAE and claim it supports COAM while it directly contradicts COAM.
You are undoubtedly the flat earther, retard.

[Anonymous No.14774671]

>>14773912
True I guess

[Anonymous No.14774680]

>>14774076
How does it contradict conservation of angular momentum?
How can it confirm conservation of angular energy while he literally gains energy out of nowhere despite the fact that he wasn't spinning prior to that?

[Anonymous No.14774813]

>>14774680
The issue we are discussing has to do with the difference between biased vague observations, and actual measurements.
If you measure this, you will find that the angular momentum is not conserved. ie: It contradicts COAM.

The only empirical evidence you can possibly present which might defeat Mandlbaur’s paper is if you can show that a typical presentation of a ball on a string demonstration reliably produces roughly 12000 rpm.
Otherwise you are avoiding his paper like a flat earther wont see facts.

[Anonymous No.14775072]

>>14773918
Fuck off John. All you are doing is proving you didn't watch the video and are continuing to reply dishonestly.

[Anonymous No.14775092]

>>14774813
Nope, he has to provide proof the the 'typical' example is 120 rpm.
In his chosen example the professor continuously pulls the string in.
That same professor also have a video of an experiment, with electronically measured data, that confirms COAM. Three tests, three sets of data visible on the screen, three confirmations.

[Anonymous No.14775200]

>>14775092
Stop cherry picking an unrelated example.
To address Mandlbaur’s paper one would have to present the mainstream example used in the paper doing roughly 12000 rpm. Alternatively the conclusion must be accepted.

[Anonymous No.14775209]

>>14773193
>>14774076
>>14774813
>>14775200

[Anonymous No.14775213]

>>14768607

[Anonymous No.14775230]

>>14768795
Lesswrong is doing pretty well, as far as online forums are concerned. Your self-serving story reminds me of how the Pepe creator thought his killing the character would make 4chan stop using him as a meme, with the difference that you aren't the creator of anything.

[Anonymous No.14775243]

>>14775200
John, show that the typical demonstration is performed at 120 rpm.
A single example does not represent the history of the example, you have to provide a statistically valid sampling of the rpms of the demonstration since the first use.
YOU have to first prove YOUR premise, not us.

[Anonymous No.14775288]

>>14775243
Stop your assumptions about my identity, Frederica.
To prove a theory wrong takes only one example.
Mandlbaur has chosen the typical ball on a string demonstration to make his proof.
If you cannot show the example he chose to make his proof doing 12000 rpm. Then you must acknowledge the proof stands.
You are treating the author badly because of your personal cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.14775296]

>>14773918
>yanking
You have already claimed that the equation of work is wrong and that pulling on the string does not add energy to the spinning ball and so going by this logic no matter how you pull the string there's no way to influence the velocity of the ball this way.
Therefore "yanking" has no effect on the outcome

[Anonymous No.14775345]

>>14775296
The ball on a string demonstration is conducted gently and conservatively over the course of roughly a second. Yanking is unnecessary and must be avoided.
The reason you support yanking is because you can’t get the results you like without it.
It is unrepeatable and therefore unscientific.

[Anonymous No.14775619]

>>14775288
Talk like a duck, quack like a duck...John.
You cannot show the example you chose to make your proof doing 120rpm. Then you must acknowledge the premise does not stand.

[Anonymous No.14775626]

>>14775345
John, the video you refuse to watch clearly shows that it is repeatable, therefore scientific.
Transitioning from r1 to r2 as quickly as possible reduces loses in the system due to the transition from r1 to r2, that is scientific.

[Anonymous No.14775701]

>>14775626
My name is Anon.
Nope. He cannot repeat the same result twice and if anyone else pulled, they would get a different result.
Surely you can’t be that blind.

[Anonymous No.14775704]

>>14775626
It is also red herring evasion of Mandlbaur’s paper as discussed so you just plain neglect defeat.

[Anonymous No.14775710]

>>14775704
You forgot to take your anti-psychotic medicine today, John.

[Anonymous No.14775765]

>>14775701
See, walk like John, talk like John, you are John.
I never stated that repeated the same result twice, John, that is you misreading again.
You clearly don't know how the real-world works, John.
You are stating that a person could spin up a test apparatus to the exact same RPM, reduce the radius in the same repeatable time frame, to produce the same second rotational velocity...by human interaction only.
You don't really think through your posts before you click that button.

Actually, you just proved your own premise wrong.
How can you claim a typical demonstration of a ball on a string at 120rpm if "He cannot repeat the same result twice and if anyone else pulled, they would get a different result."

[Anonymous No.14775781]

>>14775704
John, you keep using phrases you don't understand. Clearly, they give out Mensa cards to any who request them.
Where is the red herring in pointing out the limitation of no net torque? You know, that which is stated on page 195 of the references you use in your paper? A page you posted, no less?
When it comes down to it the equation shows the weight are at one radius then at another, net zero torque. When those conditions are met are you want to do science you have to account for any non-zero torque as the mass travels from r1 to r2. Logic 101.

[Anonymous No.14775784]

>>14775781
>When those conditions are not met, and you want to do science you have to account for any non-zero torque as the mass travels from r1 to r2. Logic 101.

[Anonymous No.14776007]

>>14775704
John "Winnetou" Mandelbaur talking about himself in the third person?

[Anonymous No.14776580]

>When the crackpots argue with each other in the crackpot thread.
Don't be selfish now, leave some room for the others.

[Anonymous No.14776660]

>>14775296
I love how JM's entire "discovery" is that if you put energy back into an open system at approximately the same rate that it's being lost, energy is approximately conserved (as opposed to momentum, which is only necessarily conserved in closed systems.) No shit, sherlock.

[Anonymous No.14776710]

>>14776660
the whole argument mandelbaur makes has to do with some idealizations in elementary physics that physicists should know (better than the crowd here) to criticize.

his example is a “ball on a string”. in physics textbooks a string is a linear object that maintains a fixed length. that means it must be capable of supplying any force required to maintain its length. like a steel beam. even steel beams stretch a little and break with enough force so the idealized perfect fixed length string is a fantasy. look at that part of the thought experiment.

second is that this string is connected to some sort of post that transfers no energy or momentum to whatever this post is connected to. and the post has zero radius. forget that the post inevitably transfers the string’s impulses to whatever it is grounded to; even just assuming the post has a finite radius implies it does NOT impart a “central force” and in that case COAM is not applicable.

both mandelbaur and his critics are so off base on this argument. Mandelbaur is wrong even ignoring friction.

[Anonymous No.14776733]

>>14776710
The funny part is that even after people point this out he's so obsessed he just circles back and says stupid shit like "Existing physics neglects those factors, and you are literally claiming the existing physics is wrong."
Does he get this pissed about how slinkies are used as examples of longitudinal sound waves even though the waves in this slinky clearly aren't moving 10x faster than the Concorde?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIkeGBXqWW0

[Anonymous No.14776840]

>>14776710
yeah, no, way off base.
John conflates the example from his textbook with the demonstrations using a ball on a string. He disregards the explanations of the equations, instead blindly using them to his own ends.
He will disregard all evidence to the contrary of COAE. He puts forth examples to back his claim that are shown to not actually show what he says them do.

[Anonymous No.14776854]

>>14776733
>10x faster than the Concorde
Jim, the Concord is dead.
I do know the video he would reference to show that slinkies are not appropriate for physics demonstrations.
https://youtu.be/MFvhrChVvrI

[Anonymous No.14776857]

>>14776840
Even after he was shown several ways to harness free energy from his rule of COAE, he refuses to even listen and denies any logic breaking real life consequences of his theory.

[Anonymous No.14776963]

Mandlbaur’s argument is that the prediction of COAM does not match reality.
Since nobody can show a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm, Mandlbaur is right.
No matter how much you pretend to be multiple people and personally insult him.

[Anonymous No.14777184]

>>14776963
john smart. others stupid. john good. others bad.

[Anonymous No.14777199]

>>14777184
Nobody makes any claims about smart. We talking about what is right and what is wrong and 12000 rpm is wrong.

It is literally that dumbass simple.

[Anonymous No.14777226]

>>14777199
john can't believe that in a frictionless setup the ball would speed up to 12000 rpm, therefore much of physics and a sizeable part of math is wrong, space is anisotropic etc., and in the entire world john alone notices this.

[Anonymous No.14777230]

>

[Anonymous No.14777267]

>>14777226
The point is that you have to make a setup with minimal friction and show the 12000 rpm. Otherwise you are just making up evidence by saying “I believe it does 12000 rpm if there is no friction”. What you believe to support your unsupported beliefs is not evidence, retard.

[Anonymous No.14777271]

>>14777230
holy shit what a dumb face

[Anonymous No.14777274]

>>14777267
see >>14773934

[Anonymous No.14777281]

>>14777267
John, anyone with half a brain knows that conservation of angular momentum, just like any other conservation law, only applies to closed systems. So whatever you are trying to disprove, it is not the thing you think you are disproving. It certainly cannot be conservation of angular momentum because the setup doesn't conform to the requirement of being closed.
You are a retard, John.

[Anonymous No.14777287]

>>14777271
Any retard can scan a video and find the least appealing frame. This is basically a personal attack.

Why would you make a personal attack?

Could it be that you can’t win the debate?

[Anonymous No.14777289]

>>14777230
wtff

[Anonymous No.14777291]

>>14777230
>tfw you're 50 and developing Alzheimer's and schizophrenia as a result of trauma due to your brother's death
feels bad man

[Anonymous No.14777294]

>>14777281
Literally claiming that the established physics demonstration of conservation of angular momentum’s is not a closed system and therefore does not conserve angular momentum is insane.

You are literally claiming that Mandlbaur’s proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong because thousands of scientists who used a ball on a string were all idiots because you know better.

Unreasonable. Insane. Retarded nutcase.

[Anonymous No.14777296]

>>14777230
Least ugly Rhodesian man.

[Anonymous No.14777305]

>>14777294
John, it clearly isn't a closed system as evidenced by the fact that the ball slows down on its own. No conservation law can hold in those conditions, John.
Professors who use this experiment as demonstration know this very well but do it probably because they lack equipment for a more controlled experiment in their classrooms, John.
>thousands of scientists who used a ball on a string were all idiots because you know better
I mean, that's literally what you are claiming, John. Not me.

[Anonymous No.14777307]

>>14777230
A face only a mother could love.

[Anonymous No.14777308]

It's so fucking hilarious how, whenever John gets banned, he starts phoneposting and referring to himself in the third person, somehow not realizing everyone here knows it's him.

[Anonymous No.14777313]

>>14777308
He'll be back to shamelessly posting his deranged drivel sooner or later as himself.

[Anonymous No.14777354]

>>14777267
the math, John. the math says conservation of AM is a consequence of more elementary laws, like those of Newton. do you think those are wrong and nobody noticed?
but all of this is beside the point. you are the one who is challenging the established science, you provide the proof. your disbelief means nothing because you are a nobody. if you want to make progress, you set up the frictionless experiment and show that it fails to produce the theoretical result. nobody is under any obligation to check your empty claims when our knowledge of physics works well all around us.

[Anonymous No.14777359]

>>14777305
Conservation of angular momentum has never required a “closed system” retard. It requires only that there is no torque. You literally arguing that there is no way to confirm COAM in the lab because “friction” is also retarded.

[Anonymous No.14777362]

>>14777354
Arguing that 12000 rpm is right and does happen in reality, is retarded.

[Anonymous No.14777368]

>>14777362
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.14777370]

>>14777359
Is calling arbitrary physics concepts "retarded" all you can do, smoothbrain?

[Anonymous No.14777372]

>>14772513
No, he is a very skilled mathematician, has a PhD and is a professor. You're just angry that he is a little bit schizo as every mathematician should be.

You think that Newton wasn't less schizo?

[Anonymous No.14777380]

>>14777368
Well then stop presenting it as one, retard.

[Anonymous No.14777381]

>>14777370
Nope. I am calling you making up arbitrary rules, retarded, retard.

[Anonymous No.14777383]

>>14777381

[Anonymous No.14777403]

>>14777362
once again: your disbelief means nothing. physics has no problem, only you do.

[Anonymous No.14777409]

>>14777403
You are the one with the argument from incredulity, retard. Everyone knows very well that 12000 rpm is objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.14777411]

>>14777383
12000 rpm =/= reality and it is wrong by an order of magnitude, retard who pretends to be more than one person.

[Anonymous No.14777412]

>>14777409
>Everyone knows very well that 12000 rpm is objectively wrong.
maybe some /b/tards, but that's it. Please go back to "studying" Bessler's perpetuum mobile nonsense like the mind-broken fucking boomer somehow stuck in the 1600s you are.

[Anonymous No.14777413]

>>14777412
You can’t claim 12000 rpm is reasonable just because your theory says so retard.

[Anonymous No.14777414]

>>14777413
You can't just claim COAM is false because the voices in your head say so retard.

[Anonymous No.14777450]

>>14777413
You're claiming the conservation of angular momentum is wrong because it doesn't work when applied outside of its defined working conditions. Who's the retard here?

[Anonymous No.14777452]

Hi Alex.

[Anonymous No.14777473]

>>14777450
Mandlbaur has proven that the classic ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum falsifies COAM. That is absolutely where it is supposed to work. Your delusional claim that COAM is not supposed to apply to a ball on a string demonstration of COAM is literally insane. Retard.

[Anonymous No.14777477]

>>14777473
haahahha wtf is this Mandlbaur's "lawyer" or something? What the fuck is wrong with this guy?

[Anonymous No.14777505]

>>14777477
It's Mandlbaur but he got beaned and is afraid he's will be banned for ban evasion.

[Anonymous No.14777516]

>>14777473
The only thing you have proven is that the ball on a string is not a closed system (obviously, it's not even closed because it's not in vacuum and the hand holding it is freely transferring linear and rotational momenta from and into the ball from the environment). It's not a new discovery.
>That is absolutely where it is supposed to work.
It's only supposed to work in approximation when the outside forces involved are significantly lower in comparison to the mass and moment of inertia of the ball. When you give it an initial spin of 2 times per second (btw I haven't seen a demonstration yet that spins it so fast especially the 20 times per second you claim so it's weird you claim it's a """standard""" experiment) you make the experiment not very approximate to ideal conditions at all.

[Anonymous No.14777553]

>>14777516
Claiming that the ball on a string is not supposed to conserve angular momentum is insane.

[Anonymous No.14777554]

>>14777473
illeism is not the best choice here. having said that, we really need thread-wide IDs on every board.

[Anonymous No.14777556]

>>14777473
disbelief isn't proof, John.

[Anonymous No.14777562]

>>14777553
>it's insane!!!
>it's retarded!!!!
>it's pseudoscience!!!
Got anything constructive left, or will you just keep on repeating the same few claims like a broken clock, you sorry faggot?

[Anonymous No.14777563]

>>14777556
12000 rpm objectively does not do 12000 rpm. That is not “belief” that is fact.

[Anonymous No.14777589]

>>14777563
>12000 rpm objectively does not do 12000 rpm
no comment necessary.

[Anonymous No.14777595]

>>14777589
The demonstration objectively does not do 12000 rpm and that is fact. You are right. No further comment is necessary. All that is left is to accept that COAM is false.

[Anonymous No.14777598]

>>14777595
>b-but it's a fact!!!
kek

[Anonymous No.14777601]

>>14777598
It is fact and only a retard can imagine it is not. Are you a retard?

[Anonymous No.14777605]

>>14777563
>12000 rpm objectively does not do 12000 rpm
Your terribly vague and contradictory syntax reminds me heavily of people with severe brain damage. In fact, it's so much gibberish, you could even get banned for violating GR6.

[Anonymous No.14777619]

>>14768738
Wish I could hang out in Hawaii with him.

[Anonymous No.14777635]

>>14777601
>Only X think Y. You're not X, are you, anon?
Imagine being this manipulative while also being completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.14777639]

>>14777230
looks like a wife-beater

[Anonymous No.14777700]

>>14777595
lol, you cannot even see that you wrote 'X objectively does not do X'?

[Anonymous No.14777779]

>>14777473
No, he hasn't. Experimental proof with measurements has been provided to him confirming COAM.
Retard.

[Anonymous No.14777836]

>>14777779
Yes, he has and nobody has shown a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm.
He is right and you are grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.14777843]

>>14777562
COAM still rings true throughout the cosmos

[Anonymous No.14777914]

>>14777843
That is why we have the “angular momentum problem” for decades baffling scientists. Right? Retard.

[Anonymous No.14777947]

>>14777914
We don't, John. There's no problem with angular momentum in physics and it isn't baffling anyone.

[Anonymous No.14777953]

>>14777836
John, you keep proving that you will go to extreme lengths to not watch contradictory evidence.

[Anonymous No.14777959]

Looking forward to more of your reddit posts, Alex. :)

[Anonymous No.14777961]

>>14777836
John, before we can discuss 12000rpm you
Ou first have to show that the classic example is performed at 2rps.
Not 1, not 3, not 1.8 but at 2rps every single time.
That is the mound you have build to die on.

[Anonymous No.14777969]

>>14777947
You are literally delusional. My name is Anon as well as : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_problem
Our solar system falsifies COAM.
A ball on a string falsifies COAM.
Every unmotivated measurement falsifies COAM.
This is because COAM is false.

[Anonymous No.14777989]

>>14777961
Mandlbaur’s paper is theoretical so the numbers are rough estimates and you must actually be retarded.

[Anonymous No.14778021]

>>14777989
No, John, your claims have been made using very clear language.
The classic demonstration must be performed at 2rps in order to obtain the theoretical 12000rpm. That is in your own paper, dispshit.
You have rejected any experiment that proves COAM and one of those reasons, silly enough, is the the initial angular velocity was not 2rps.
The retard is the one requiring all demonstrations meet the highly specific 10:1 radius reduction from an initial 2rps.
Think John, think. Your equations work for other radius and initial velocities.
Video evidence using other initial conditions, ones more easily obtained, has been provided.

[Anonymous No.14778026]

>>14777969
You don't even know what the Angular Momentum Problem in Astrophysics is.

[Anonymous No.14778135]

>>14777969
that's still not a problem with angular momentum. it's a detail to be explained about protoplanetary disks.
unfortunately you don't seem to realize the absolutely staggering mass of implicit evidence in favor of COAM, namely that pretty much nothing should work as expected if COAM was false. COAM is deduced from more elementary facts, not from a classroom demonstration, and either the machinery of the deduction, i.e. pretty much elementary math, or the starting points of the deduction, that is, Newtonian physics as such should be absolutely, irreconcilably wrong. we don't see that, do we?
the conclusion is that in a frictionless setup 12000 rpm would indeed happen, and that your disbelief is baseless. fortunately it is also immaterial.

[Anonymous No.14778156]

>>14778021
My name is Anon. Stop insulting me.
You have to show roughly 12000 rpm to falsify the reductio ad absurdum theoretical argument, lazy fucking unscientific retard.

[Anonymous No.14778187]

>>14778156
>>14778135
>>14778026
>>14778021
>>14777989
>>14777969
>>14777961
>>14777959
>>14777953
>>14777914
>>14777843
the peak of science everyone

[Anonymous No.14778206]

Did this thread attract one of the retards it's making fun of?

[Anonymous No.14778210]

>>14778156
No, John. You first have to show 2rps to affirm your "reductio ad absurdum theoretical argument".

[Anonymous No.14778218]

>>14778206
Either yes or someone who is very good at pretending to be.

[Anonymous No.14778239]

>>14778218
Can I get a quick rundown?

[Anonymous No.14778248]

>>14778218
unfortunately, it does not take much to imitate him. I think it would be an easy thing for a bot to do.
... did he just implicitly fail the Turing-test?

[Anonymous No.14778263]

>>14778248
There is a particular manner to John's posts before he starts baying.
To take the time to mimic the posts and the thought process on an ongoing effort...

[Anonymous No.14778282]

[Anonymous No.14778349]

>>14778282
Correct

[Anonymous No.14778363]

>>14778248
>schizos can't pass a turing test
literal npcs

[Anonymous No.14778393]

>>14778363
Bro, he has Mensa membership. I'm sure he can ace the Turing test.

[Anonymous No.14779253]

>>14777359
>Conservation of angular momentum has never required a “closed system” retard.
>It requires only that there is a closed system.
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.14779648]

>>14778206
nigga it attracted ALL of the retards it's making fun of

[Anonymous No.14779684]

>>14779253
It required no torque which is not the same as a closed system, idiot.
See the example on Mandlbaur’s web site of prof young explaining very clearly that the ball on a string has no torque. And then re-think your life, deluded retard.

[Anonymous No.14779733]

>>14779684
Stop pretending to be John, it's obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.14779767]

>>14779684
a ball on a string tied to something and spinning around it, in real life, obviously does cause a torque on the thing it is tied to. you can experiment this easily in real life. find something that rotates freely like a fishing spinner reel. connect a ball to its line while the drag is released. throw the ball. it will spin the reel because the ball applies a torque on it.

i think you are just confused by the idealizations made in the examples youve looked at, i suspect they correspond to the case where the reel has zero radius which is not physical

[Anonymous No.14779770]

>>14779767
Professor young says the opposite. So you can just change the rules to suit your argument, can you?

[Anonymous No.14779787]

>>14779770
Are you capable of backing up that claim with a time stamp linked video?

[Anonymous No.14779810]

>>14779770
john, appealing to the authority of “professor young” is a pretty hypocritical move when your argument is that every professor in history since Newton is wrong.

second i am sure any physics textbook in the world agrees with me if you actually took some time to study it. can you make an actual argument on physics without some bad-faith appeal to authority?

[Anonymous No.14779812]

>>14779787
See Mandlbaur’s example page example 4 at 27:48.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

[Anonymous No.14779826]

>>14779812
nothing in this post confirms anything besides the fact that mandela it has no idea what “approximation” means.

in certain systems angular momentum is conserved. in others it is not. in some it is conserved somewhat but violated somewhat too. that is because conservation of angular momentum only holds under certain conditions and those conditions matter. john’s fallacy is not recognizing when these certain conditions are met or not

[Anonymous No.14779840]

>>14779812
Why doesn't that ball keep rotating?
Oh yeah, that is the demonstration John keeps saying the professor pauses at about 10% of the initial raids, don't you see it?
As for the torque, if you actually paid attention you would have caught that he was only describing the torque along the long due to his pulling the string.
Also, See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg for the same professor conducting measures experiments. Pay attention to the data collection plots and ask why the lines have negative slope.
Finally, read the example page from his text book. Realize he ignores the text in favor of plugging numbers into equations.
>>14751853

[Anonymous No.14779876]

>>14779826
The words “zero torque” confirms that there is no torque, retarded retard.

[Anonymous No.14779881]

>>14779840
If he does not pause, then the result should be even more than 12000 rpm. You being a moron does not change the rules of physics, retard.

[Anonymous No.14779883]

>>14779812
>>14779876
>the professor says pulling on the string exerts no torque
>therefore there is no external torque
Clearly they do not teach English in South Africa.

[Anonymous No.14779885]

>>14779883
I never said anything about South Africa, retard.
Also “zero torque” means the same anywhere in the world , retard.

[Anonymous No.14779889]

>>14779876
qg outing the words “zero torque” out of context is basically as far from an argument as you can get. do you understand what the idea of “an argument” is?

it means you need to try and state a point of fact and defend it on your own.

not quoting others (or misquoting others as you are repeatedly doing in this thread). not just repeating things. “making an argument” means stating an argument that stands alone without reference to whatever else. you’re extremely bad at that so far it seems

[Anonymous No.14779892]

>>14779876
quouting the words “zero torque” out of context is basically as far from an argument as you can get. do you understand what the idea of “an argument” is?

it means you need to try and state a point of fact and defend it on your own.

not quoting others (or misquoting others as you are repeatedly doing in this thread). not just repeating things. “making an argument” means stating an argument that stands alone without reference to whatever else. you’re extremely bad at that so far it seems

[Anonymous No.14779896]

>>14779885
You're either John or a troll pretending to be John so South Africa is obviously relevant.
And your reimagination of what the professor and the textbook are saying is irrelevant, they are talking about pulling on the string and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.14779995]

>>14779896
“Zero torque” objectively means something different to a biased retard in obvious denial. Dunce.

[Anonymous No.14780015]

>>14779892
Professor Young is talking directly about ball on a string. That is directly in context you absolute idiot.

[Anonymous No.14780018]

>>14779995
Yeah, it clearly means something different to someone like Mandlbaur. Why are you saying the obvious?

[Anonymous No.14780021]

>>14780018
“Zero torque” means the same thing to anybody. It means that the ball on a string is (supposed to be) and example of COAM. The fact that it disobeys the law means the law is wrong. Simple. Unless you are a denialtard.

[Anonymous No.14780029]

>>14780021
He is explicitly referring to the torque of pulling the string, as is your precious textbook example. Stop being an illiterate retard/dishonest troll.

[Anonymous No.14780104]

>>14780029
He explicitly states immediately after “zero torque….. we have an example of conservation of angular momentum “. Or am I misunderstanding that clear as fucking daylight direct statement. Retard. Are you even a scientists ass?

[Anonymous No.14780112]

>>14780104
Clearly he's wrong for dumbing it down for students by making some assumptions that make the problem easier but not dumb enough for John to comprehend.
What do you think the purpose is of the experiment, John?

[Anonymous No.14780120]

>>14780112
So the professor is wrong but you retarded not even a professors ass is right. Fcuk off retarded asshole. Stop wasting everyone’s time and interfering with progress.

[Anonymous No.14780131]

>>14780120
Professor is as wrong as a teacher trying to use an analogy (like apples and baskets) to explain division to kids. Obviously division is not about apples and baskets but the teacher uses it as a learning tool. Similarly, the professor takes some liberty assuming the system is close while it is in fact not closed just to make the physics simpler to explain to students. You being unable to recognise the professor's intent here says loads about your ability to interpret social cues.

[Anonymous No.14780140]

>>14780131
Retard is trying to claim that a ball on a string demonstration is an “analogy” for a ball on a string demonstration.

Fuck off retarded asshole.

[Anonymous No.14780149]

>>14780140
It's a demonstration for students. You are reading too deep into this. Consider that nobody really uses it for precise calculations and professional setups abandon the ball on the string entirely as it is difficult to isolate it from the environment enough to achieve reliable results.

[Anonymous No.14780154]

>>14780149
It demonstrates COAE retard. You are delusional and don’t know anything about science. If the demonstration is measured and shown fake, then that counts even if the asshole scientists never bothered to measure before. Stop being stupid. Moron.

[Anonymous No.14780172]

>>14780154
Well, the professor is clearly wrong when he assumes it's a closed system. The reasonable explanation is that it doesn't really matter because the purpose of the experiment is a demonstration and not accuracy. But of course, you John, as the conspiracy theorist you are, you are assuming malice and world wide effort to fight you even though more than 99.9% of the world's scientists couldn't give a fuck about what some random old man from South Africa thinks.

[Anonymous No.14780189]

>>14780149
But muh 12 billion RPM!!

[Anonymous No.14780198]

>>14780172
The ball on a string, when not being yanked on, is reliable, consistent and repeatable and it confirms COAE.

How do you explain that?

[Anonymous No.14780199]

>>14780198
Except it isn't. You have never actually showed that. And in every example you ever provided, the energy disappears from the system on its own so clearly it cannot be an example of any kind of conservation of energy.
What a surprise, a poor testing setup results in environmental factors affecting the results. Who could have ever guessed that?

[Anonymous No.14780204]

>>14780199
Are you making the extraordinary claim that the un-yanked ball on a string is inconsistent, unreliable and cannot be repeated?

[Anonymous No.14780209]

>>14780204
It's inconsistent because it depends on how the string is fixed, the properties of the air, and how closely the setup approximates the theoretical case. Which is doesn't do very well.
It's not an extraordinary claim to say that experiments subject to external factors do not provide reliable results.
If you want reliable experiment you can perform dozens of the robust laboratory setups that include precise speed measurements and low friction.

[Anonymous No.14780229]

>>14780209
A reasonable person would never be able to say that it is inconsistent because mere observation shows that it behaves roughly the same no matter who conducts it and what apparatus is used. Denial makes you unreasonable.

[Jealous No.14780237]

[Anonymous No.14780307]

>>14780104
He explicitly states this in the context of pulling the string. i.e. pulling the string does not increase its angular momentum, because it is centripetal force, not a torque.
>>14780120
The professor isn't wrong, you just hear "zero torque" and immediately discard everything else like the retarded monkey you are.
https://youtu.be/kJyI7IFamK0?t=1572
>Here, as I am pulling on the string, it almost seems like oh, maybe there is an outside torque.
Which is what he is addressing. Not your fantasy that "A bAlL aNd StRiNg Is A cLoSeD sYsTeM", which literally no one, not the professor, nor your textbook, claims.

[Anonymous No.14780313]

>>14780307
An un-yanked ball on a string is reliable, consistent and repeatable and it confirms COAE.

[Anonymous No.14780322]

>>14780313
>deliberately manipulating experiments confirms COAE
nobody cares about your crackpot theory, John

[Anonymous No.14780332]

>>14780322
The lab rat is an independent experimenter and he confirms COAE blindly. The only intentional manipulation of results is when he does not like the fact that COAE is confirmed and starts yanking.
The crackpot theory is COAM because it has not been confirmed repeatably and can only be vaguely simulated by yanking. ie: it is practically impossible to confirm COAM because obviously it is false.

[Anonymous No.14780344]

>>14780332
>lab rat
independently confirms conservation of angular momentum.
>yanking
already proven to not be relevant.
>it is practically impossible to confirm reality because it is false
take your meds, john.

[Anonymous No.14780349]

>>14780344
My name is Anon and
Yanking is unscientific, retard.
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14780352]

>>14780349
take your meds, john.

[Anonymous No.14780357]

>>14780352
Yanking until he overshoots is unscientific. You have no interest in science. You are trying to win irrelevant of the fact that a ball on a string confirms COAE. Why?

[Anonymous No.14780416]

>>14779881
Damn you are one dumb fuck I'm not arguing against the rules of physics you damn dipshit.
Is it too much to ask you to actually read?

[Anonymous No.14780433]

>>14780357
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14780452]

>>14780416
>>14780433
The rules of science is that if the prediction does not match reality then the theory is wrong.
12000 rpm does not match reality.
So let’s follow the rules?


He directly manipulated the results at 49:00. You present unscientific garbage.

Please behave with reason and drop the bias?

[Anonymous No.14780467]

>>14780452
So you agree that the rules state that there must be zero net torque on the ball and a string.
So for your ball and a string to be accurate you must show that there is net zero torque on the ball on the string. Those are the rules after all.
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14780482]

>>14780452
Dumb fuck that is not the rule of science. You completely disregard the fact that experiments could be poorly executed.
A poorly designed and executed experiment is by no reasonable logic a reason to invalidate half of physics. The basic process of science is to repeat and to challenge the experiment.
John, guess what you've never done.

[Anonymous No.14780503]

>>14780482
The lab rat is independent confirmation of my mathematical proof.
You have to repeat the experiment and show that the consistent and repeatable un-yanked ball on a string result differs from what the LabRat confirms.

Why are you anti-science?

[Anonymous No.14780520]

>>14780503
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
John, Your own damn sources, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.14780530]

>>14780520
Manipulated data at 49:00 you circular retard.
Why are you anti-science?

[Anonymous No.14780539]

>>14780503
Thanks for confirming your identity.
The only person who has to perform any experiments is you. We dont have to reproduce shit.
Also, notice how you change the conditions by adding the subjective 'no janking' criteria?
Hell if you want to focus on your paper your equations are at r1 and r2, there is no transistion. Logic says that in the real world there is a transition and that it should be are short as possible.
Why are you anti-science?

[Anonymous No.14780550]

>>14780530
No data was manipulated, you dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.14780565]

>>14780550
Can you see or not. The result was 10.15 and he decided to write 10.2. That is direct motivated reasoning manipulation. Aside from the fact that he is clearly and undeniably yanking.

Why are you unscientific?

[Anonymous No.14780584]

Hey John, since it's been confirmed that it's you there's been something I've been meaning to ask.
How exactly do you define "angular energy"? I want to confirm your prediction that the ball should spin at 1200 rpm, and that COAE explains gyroscopes, but I'm not sure what formula to use. Clearly it isn't [math]K = \frac {I\omega^2} 2[/math], since that is clearly a scalar (and you have established in prior threads that angular energy is a vector that you defined.)

[Anonymous No.14780587]

>>14780565
No, the data clearly shows 10.20.
10.50 is nowhere in the table.
Do you really need a picture of the table to show how fucked up you are are basic reading?

[Anonymous No.14780598]

>>14780587
My bad, 10.15.
10.2 is the maximun, dipshit.
Even with 10.15, the experiment would still be valid for COAM.
The fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14780873]

>>14780598
Run the experiment without yanking exactly hard enough professor.

Acknowledge that if you allowed your students to do the yanking, the results would be different. Every time, because yanking is not repeatable.

Better still just acknowledge that your ball on a string demonstration falsified COAM.

What the duck is wrong with you?

Why are you so unscientific?

[Anonymous No.14780885]

>>14780584
My name is anon. Stop trying to dox me asshole.
Mandlbaur has made it very clear that angular energy is rotational kinetic energy.
It is a vector the same way that angular momentum is a vector. Using the right hand rule.
Is this difficult for you ?

[Anonymous No.14780887]

How do manage to ruin a crackpot thread as a crackpot?

[Anonymous No.14780962]

>>14780887
Sorry to ruin your schadenfreude little personal chuckle, retard.
The issue here though is that you are literally the crackpot.
How the hell can you face a 12000 rpm prediction for a handheld demonstration and imagine that COAM is not false?
The only reasonable explanation is temporary insanity.

[Anonymous No.14780976]

>>14780885
I am asking for the formula, not your address. And you can stop pretending you're John, btw, you already admitted it.
>It is a vector the same way that angular momentum is a vector.
So what you're saying is, the reason angular energy is conserved because angular energy is angular momentum?

[Anonymous No.14780979]

>>14780976
you can stop pretending you're *not John.

[Anonymous No.14780988]

>>14780979
My name is Anon.
Why are you trying to fake dox me?
Are you afraid of the truth?
Coam is false. Coam is false.
COAM is fallacy.
COAM is false. COAM is false.
COAM is fallacy.
Face the truth
grow up
stop wasting time
being stupid.

[Anonymous No.14781000]

>>14780988
Repeating delusional nonsense doesn't make it reality, flat earth retard.
>stop wasting time
>being stupid.
Imagine saying this after wasting 7 years of your own life spouting stupid nonsense just because you're a flat earth retard who thinks all of math is wrong because why ball not go 12000 rpm?!?

[Anonymous No.14781005]

>>14780976
L = r x p.
If angular energy is conserved then the vector component referred to by x p remains the same magnitude and r changes, so angular momentum changes because it is on the opposite side of the equation, does that make my position clear?
You could also look at one of Mandlbaur’s papers which explains it clearly, concisely and very logically
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/CAMFI3e.pdf

[Anonymous No.14781022]

>>14780873
Damn, you are one fucking dumb shitstain on South Africa.
You can get valid scientific data from who fast or slow the transition from r1 to r2 is, you are just to fucking ignorant to see the writing on the wall.
The data shows correlation with COAM, the result was repeatable, the rapid transition was appropriate.
Why are you so unscientific?

[Anonymous No.14781028]

>>14781005
>the vector component referred to by x p remains the same magnitude
The fuck did you come up with this gem?

[Anonymous No.14781050]

>>14781028
When circular motion is occurring, the momentum is conserved in magnitude, right?
The cross product extracts the perpendicular component of momentum from the momentum in order to multiply it with the magnitude of the radius in order to calculate the magnitude of angular momentum, correct?
If angular energy is conserved then the perpendicular component of p remains constant, yes?

Does that make it clear?

[Anonymous No.14781059]

>>14781022
The result is not repeatable. The fact that you have to train yourself to get exactly the right yank, and it is difficult to achieve results which agree with the theory should be a big red flag to you.

Let your students pull it in reasonably without coaching and present those measurements because that would be real science.
Compare those results to COAE.
Then learn something.

[Anonymous No.14781077]

>>14781005
>Mandlbaur’s papers
stop talking in the third person, it's weird as fuck.
Also you haven't explained shit. How is "angular energy" a vector when it doesn't even have an actual mathematical definition?
>>14781050
Momentum is a vector, unlike energy. Joules have no direction.
>>14781059
>Compare those results to COAE.
COAE predicts that satellites with eccentric orbits will maintain a constant orbital (tangential) velocity because angular energy is conserved when you pull gently on muh string. Yet all precise measurements show that the moon and artificial satellites with eccentric orbits have a greater orbital velocity when they're closer to the earth than when they're farther from the earth, as if angular momentum is being conserved. Must be some kind of coverup, that's gotta be it! Mandy can't possibly be wrong!

[Anonymous No.14781079]

>>14780452
>12000 rpm does not match reality.
in a frictionless setup, it does.

[Anonymous No.14781081]

>>14780530
>circular retard
yeah, it's John.

[Anonymous No.14781104]

>>14781079
NOOOOO you're not allowed to repeat the experiment in a closed system, it has to lose energy and it has to be at the same rate you're putting energy in otherwise it's MANIPULATION!!!1!
(also just fyi, John is actually probably right that the friction is negligible. Most of the external forces are due to the experimenter's arm wobbling against the ball and string, slowing it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvcXUeZQMyE))

[Anonymous No.14781106]

>>14781059
You fucking idiot, he runs the experiment three times and three times the result validates COAM.

[Anonymous No.14781121]

>>14774076
>angular momentum being conserved proves that angular momentum is not conserved
This dude has got to be trolling.

[Anonymous No.14781131]

>>14781104
Actually, John has probably stated that friction is to be ignored or is irrelevant.
Given enough time his claims will jump all ocer the place.
Look at his obsession now with yanking.
He has been presented with measured proof that a rotating system in real life on a bench will slow down on its own.

[Anonymous No.14781161]

>>14780988
Lol, how much of a fucking narcissist do you have to be to pretend you are your own fanboy?

[Anonymous No.14781163]

>>14781050
>The cross product extracts the perpendicular component of momentum from the momentum
The perpendicular component of a vector is always 0. You might be thinking of a dot product because that's not what a cross product does.

[Anonymous No.14781180]

>>14781163
You are literally arguing that angular momentum is always zero, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781184]

>>14781161
How much of an argument do you have if you have to try and dox the person presenting the argument instead of addressing it?

[Anonymous No.14781187]

>>14781180
No? What?
You said the cross product "extracts the perpendicular component". That's meaningless and nonsensical so I am pointing it out.
You like using big words but you almost never know what they mean.

[Anonymous No.14781194]

>>14781187
Should have said:
You said the cross product "extracts the perpendicular component of momentum" for better context. It's almost right yet still wrong because you don't actually know what any of it means. You don't have even the basic idea about vector operations and vectors in general.

[Anonymous No.14781203]

>>14781131
No, John has evaluated the existing physics prediction of the law of COAM and physicists have declared his maths to be 100% correct.
It has never been in history accepted as addressing a theoretical physics to say “friction” and neglect the paper.

[Anonymous No.14781212]

>>14781121
Angular energy is what is conserved. Angular momentum never was.

[Anonymous No.14781213]

>>14781180
lmao bruh he never said that at all
why even bother trying to argue math if you don't understand how vectors work? or why angular momentum has a sign while energy can only be positive?
>>14781184
John, my dude, people recognizing your obvious posting style isn't doxing.
>>14781203
You haven't proven shit aside from the fact that you don't know basic math.

[Anonymous No.14781219]

>>14781212
he goes from not spinning, to his arm and body spinning in opposite directions, to not spinning, all while not touching anything else that is spinning. there is no conservation of angular energy. there is quite clear conservation of angular momentum.

[Anonymous No.14781225]

>>14781106
Yes, but a person who has trained himself to be good at darts can hit the bull three times in a row and so we can accept it proven scientifically that every dart hits the bullseye now. Retard.

[Anonymous No.14781227]

>>14781203
>physicists have declared his maths to be 100% correct
Please, don't lie John.
>It has never been in history accepted as addressing a theoretical physics to say “friction” and neglect the paper.
John, do you even know what theoretical or applied physics are?

[Anonymous No.14781233]

>>14781104
You must be a mental case repeating the same stupid defeated argument over and over again. Retard.

[Anonymous No.14781238]

>>14781233
You're the one who keeps falling back to muh 12000 rpm, muh there is no external torque, muh yanking, etc., though?

[Anonymous No.14781239]

>>14781081
You think that John is the only anon capable of putting two words together now?
Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.14781243]

>>14781079
Then show us?
Imaginary evidence doesn’t count.

[Anonymous No.14781244]

>>14781239
Stop talking in the third person, faggotron. It's weird as fuck.

[Anonymous No.14781250]

>>14781077
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. That is fact. Stop evading the facts and trying to shift the burden of proof back on John. Retard.

[Anonymous No.14781255]

>>14781250
Stop talking in the third person, weirdo.
Your retarded 12000 rpm argument is nothing but an argument from incredulity, i.e. flat earth bullshit. Fuck off and take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14781268]

>>14781225
Do you even pay attention to what posts your are replying to?
You are making no sense what so ever.

[Anonymous No.14781331]

>>14781268
The fact that the professor has trained himself to yank a vaguely similar result three times does not confirm that angular momentum is conserved.
The lab rats blind confirmation of my prediction does confirm COAE because it is independent experimental confirmation which is the holy grail of scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.14781334]

>>14781255
Your refusal to accept that 12000 rpm contradicts reality is literally insane, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781346]

>>14781334
Reality doesn't care about your opinion, John. The moon slows down as it moves further away regardless of your thought experiments, because angular momentum is conserved in a closed system.

[Anonymous No.14781351]

>>14781346
No. The moon does not speed up as it comes close. You are deluded.

[Anonymous No.14781402]

>>14781351
It does. The Moon speeds up from 970 m/s to 1082 m/s as it moves from its apogee to the perigee. If you calculate its angular momentum it is conserved within 0.1% of error.

[Anonymous No.14781409]

>>14781351
Flat earth retard, you are essentially asserting that falling objects do not gain velocity and objects thrown upward do not lose velocity. That is retarded and contradicts all observations ever.

[Anonymous No.14781419]

>>14781331
So, why is the professor not lso independant?
He was good enough for you to includes in your examples, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.14781443]

>>14781239
you are the only person on Earth who uses 'circular' as a swearword.

[Anonymous No.14781456]

>>14781351
at least you acknowledge a consequence of your delusions, although in a negative sense, denying something that was known for centuries. when do you get to the point where you announce that space is anisotropic? COAM is a consequence of spatial isotropy, so it can only be false if spatial directions are somehow not equivalent.

[Anonymous No.14781470]

>>14781351
>>14781456
The consequence of that is that orbits are inherently unstable and the Moon should have crashed into the Earth or flew off into space billions of years ago.
Clearly the Moon follows a pretty stable elliptical orbit consistent with the conservation of angular momentum (or Kepler's law of equal areas) so we can conclude that angular momentum is in fact conserved.

[Anonymous No.14781498]

>>14781402
Nope. It does not. Those are theoretical values. If you actually measure it, you will find differently. You are misled and therefore deluded.

[Anonymous No.14781503]

>>14781409
No. I am saying the momentum is conserved and just the direction changes
, the angular momentum changes.

[Anonymous No.14781516]

>>14781419
His ball on a string demonstration is honest. His mechanical device to engineer COAM is delusional bullshit. You understand that a person can be right about one thing and wrong about another, right?

[Anonymous No.14781522]

>>14781456
I do not deny the apparent increase in speed of the moon when it is closer, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781525]

>>14781503
>I am saying the momentum is conserved and just the direction changes
i.e. you are saying that falling objects do not gain velocity and objects thrown upward do not lose velocity.
>the momentum is conserved
>the angular momentum changes
For the momentum of the Earth-moon system to be conserved, the angular momentum of the moon must NOT change.

[Anonymous No.14781527]

>>14781470
Bullshit.
Stop the strawman logical fallacy, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781532]

>>14781522
Now you're just flat out lying. >>14781351

[Anonymous No.14781539]

>>14781525
Nobody is talking about objects being thrown up, retard.
This is strawman logical fallacy.
Illogical bullshit is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.14781541]

>>14781532
he said "apparent speed". I fear going down that particular rabbit hole. ultimately it will turn out everything just looks like COAM is valid, but in reality it is not, or something comparable.

[Anonymous No.14781542]

>>14781532
You understand that since the moon is closer, even if it is going the same speed, it will appear to move faster across the sky, right?

[Anonymous No.14781543]

>>14781498
>the values are wrong because they don't align with what I believe
Wow, basically a flat earther.

[Anonymous No.14781546]

>>14781527
??? Do you even know what a strawman is?

[Anonymous No.14781548]

>>14781543
Nope. The values from your table are theoretical values which will ver obviously match up perfectly with COAM. They just don’t match reality.

[Anonymous No.14781562]

>>14781546
A strawman is when you replace the presented argument with your own argument and then defeat that.
My argument is that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM. You are evading my argument by replacing it with something you claim is related or consequent and defeated your own argument.
You fail to address the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

[Anonymous No.14781563]

>>14781542
>>14781548
>>14781503
>>14781498
If the Moon doesn't speed up when it gets closer it means that it cannot maintain any orbit. Under your hypothesis, all stellar objects move on spirals and stable orbits do not exist. It also implies that falling objects do not gain speed (otherwise they would be conserving angular momentum which you claim is false).

[Anonymous No.14781564]

>>14781541
called it >>14781542
ffs this guy thinks nobody thought of this particular detail.

[Anonymous No.14781566]

>>14781562
You very clearly claimed that the Moon doesn't obey conservation of angular momentum. So it is not a strawman to correct you about it.

[Anonymous No.14781570]

>>14781516
Do you understand?

[Anonymous No.14781571]

>>14781564
It is a fact that the orbital velocity of the moon is damn near constant and it only appears to move faster across the sky. Whether they thought about it or not, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781579]

>>14781566
The moon conserves angular energy, like a ball on a string.
You trying to claim that the orbit would not be stable for some imaginary reason, does not change the facts of nature.

[Anonymous No.14781587]

>>14781563
You making an imaginary claim that an orbit would not be stable unless a ball on a string does 12000 rpm, is retarded.

[Anonymous No.14781591]

>>14781539
What the fuck do you think an orbit is, idiot? Magic?

[Anonymous No.14781595]

>>14781571
It is a fact that no object with an eccentric orbit has a "near constant" speed.

[Anonymous No.14781597]

>>14781591
I know that it is not adequately explained by existing theory.
I know that I can simply and accurately predict a ball on a string and existing physics cannot.

[Anonymous No.14781599]

>>14781597
Existing theories model ballistic trajectories quite well, actually. Unlike any of your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14781601]

>>14781595
You are mistaken. The moon has very near, if not absolutely constant orbital velocity.

[Anonymous No.14781604]

>>14781599
We are talking rotational motion, not ballistics, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781635]

>>14781604
They are literally the same thing, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781649]

I went ahead and looked at Mandlbaurian orbits and they are even worse than I expected. They don't really spiral in. They just give up and plunge straight down. In the picture the initial velocity is off by 0.5% from being an ideally circular orbit and yet a COAE orbit can't even complete a single cycle.

[Anonymous No.14781653]

>>14781649
Well, obviously you did something wrong.
Did you forget to use the equations in his paper, and only as presented? Also the orbit must be 2rps so that the theorist is 12000rpm when it gets closer.

[Anonymous No.14781655]

>>14781649
Uh, must be dark matter sapping away the angular energy somehow! something something 12000 rpm

[Anonymous No.14781656]

>>14781653
Stop evading and address the simple fact that the moon falsifies COAE.

[Anonymous No.14781662]

>>14781653
>Also the orbit must be 2rps so that the theorist is 12000rpm when it gets closer.
What the fuck are you talking about? It's clearly simulating orbits.

[Anonymous No.14781675]

>>14781649
Highly elliptical orbit for good measure.

[Anonymous No.14781680]

>>14781656
You dumbfuck. I've not posted about the moon.

[Anonymous No.14781681]

>>14781675
>comets are part of the Big Spin hoax
It's all starting to come together now...

[Anonymous No.14781682]

>>14781635
Nope. They are not.

[Anonymous No.14781685]

>>14781662
Yeah, that joke went flying fucking right over your head.
I notice that you didnt quote the entire post, which should have provided the necessary context.
Also, hiw the fuck at this point to you not recognize the 12000rpm reference?

[Anonymous No.14781686]

>>14781649
How about measuring a ball on a string honestly and comparing the results to COAE?

[Anonymous No.14781690]

>>14781686
John first.

[Anonymous No.14781692]

>>14781686
Already done and LabRat independently confirmed that angular momentum is conserved. But since it doesn't match up with your retarded theory it's "manipulation", just as using any other apparatus that minimizes outside forces is "manipulation".

[Anonymous No.14781693]

>>14781685
I just assume John's brain is a microwaved mush now so I can't distinguish between satirical posts and actual John.

[Anonymous No.14781699]

>>14781687
Because im not any of the anons talking about the moon, you fucking simpleton.
i simply made a tongue in cheek post channeling one of John's typical replies.
Get that stick from out of your ass before to do serious damage.

[Anonymous No.14781701]

>>14781653
>>14781685
>>14781693
Actually, you didn't call me a retard or a moron so a clear giveaway it's a fake Mandlbaur post. My bad.

[Anonymous No.14781704]

>>14781693
Honestly I'm not even 100% certain the real John was ever in the thread. The only evidence is how John occasionally accidentally forgets to refer to himself in the third person, but it could also just as easily be a troll trying to make you think he's John pretending not to be John. The dude isn't that hard to impersonate.

[Anonymous No.14781705]

>>14781693
Ah, yeah i can see that. Sorry.
I was trying to beat him to the punch with his standardized excuses.

[Anonymous No.14781706]

>>14781687
How about measuring the moon then. Here’s how https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9120/41/2/004/meta

[Anonymous No.14781708]

>>14781692
He confirmed that angular energy is conserved.
Then he started yanking which is pseudoscience.

His scientific result was perfect confirmation of COAE.

[Anonymous No.14781713]

>>14781708
Ideology is not science. Go home.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781715]

>>14781708
It cannot be because orbits clearly falsify COAE so it's a false theory.

[Anonymous No.14781717]

>>14781690
John measured prof lewin and confirms COAE. So you don’t listen to any evidence that John produces.

[Anonymous No.14781724]

>>14781715
Since my theory is not a theory as much as it is a discovery that angular momentum is not conserved, you are fighting the wrong bull.

[Anonymous No.14781730]

>>14781717
You have already established that counting frames is not evidence, John, such as in this video where counting frames clearly shows that angular momentum is conserved, and even without muh yanking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
Stop being a hypocrite, John.
>>14781724
Orbits falsify COAE so your theory is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14781731]

>>14781713
Yanking harder and harder until you overshoot your desired result and then calling it science is retarded.

[Anonymous No.14781733]

>>14781724
You are proposing an alternative and being adamant that conservation of angular energy is the correct theory. So it is very relevant and you are clearly wrong about it as evidenced by orbits of stellar objects.

[Anonymous No.14781737]

>>14781724
>gets proven wrong
>"um actually that wasn't my theory"
>pretends he was correct this whole time
John, you don't have any credibility in physics and you are wrong about many things. There's no real reason to entertain your ideas.

[Anonymous No.14781738]

>>14781733
Nope. I am simply showing an alternative explanation for why “it spins faster” in the discussion section of the paper. Face the simple fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

This is not a joke. This is simple fact.

Face it.

[Anonymous No.14781739]

>>14781731
There is no "overshoot", retard. No amount of "yanking" will introduce torque.

[Anonymous No.14781742]

>>14781737
I never been “proven wrong”, retard.
Nobody can fault my maths, so everyone has to accept the conclusion.

I am not defeated by excuses.

My paper stands.

[Anonymous No.14781744]

>>14781739
The LabRat starts yanking and has to upgrade to Kevlar lad before he manages to get “close enough” to confirm his bias by overshooting, retard.

Every single “confirmation” of COAM is the same.

His initial result perfectly matches COAE.

Why is it so difficult to just measure.

[Anonymous No.14781746]

>>14781738
Why are you lying, John? You are claiming that conservation of angular energy is correct. It was shown to lead to the wrong conclusions so it is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14781748]

>>14781744
There is no "overshooting", retard.
Ideology is not science. Go home.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781749]

>>14781744
John, you have previously claimed that pulling on the string cannot increase the energy of the spinning ball. Yet now you claim that it can. This is not consistent with your principle.

[Anonymous No.14781763]

>>14781742
Sorry to break this to you after these long 7 years, but you have been thoroughly refuted in every single debate you've ever attempted.

[Anonymous No.14781780]

>>14781763
Nope. Nobody has ever defeated any of my papers. Ever. You are deluded.

[Anonymous No.14781782]

>>14781749
Yanking is chaotic. You are desperately supporting pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.14781786]

>>14781748
The lab rat overshot. You simply being in stubborn denial is stupid.

[Anonymous No.14781788]

>>14781746
You are lying. I have shown you that angular momentum is not conserved and you are in denial.

[Anonymous No.14781792]

>>14781786
Ideology is not science. Go home.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781795]

>>14781782
But you yourself claimed that pulling the string does not change the energy of the ball so your claim that it can now is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.14781797]

>>14781788
You have claimed time and time again that angular energy is conserved.

[Anonymous No.14781801]

>>14781797
And it is.
You have claimed that angular momentum is conserved but it isn’t

[Anonymous No.14781804]

>>14781795
Nope. Yanking causes chaos beyond the designs of the aparatus and is pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.14781807]

>>14781792
Overshooting when theoretically impossible proves yanking chaotic.

[Anonymous No.14781815]

>>14781807
Ideology is not science. Go home.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781828]

>>14781815
“It spins faster” is the current level of science, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781830]

>>14781801
But it clearly isn't as evidenced by orbital motion.

[Anonymous No.14781832]

>>14781804
Care to explain by what mechanism that would happen? Since the string cannot transfer energy by your own claim.

[Anonymous No.14781836]

>>14781830
Our orbital mechanics is embarrassing.

12000 rpm doesn’t happen as a stupid prediction for no reason retard. We are stupid at the moment. We don’t have a clue what we are doing.
Listen, measure, and learn.

[Anonymous No.14781845]

>>14781832
When you yank you interrupt the rotational motion and introduce linear acceleration and ultimately yank as much energy in as you like. Due to the chaotic nature of such a large amount of energy being yanked into the fragile system, a tiny little bit of residual energy can hugely influence the meagre by comparison results.

[Anonymous No.14781854]

>>14781836
>Our orbital mechanics is embarrassing.
It works fine. COAE on the other hand predicts complete nonsense as was shown earlier.

[Anonymous No.14781857]

>>14781845
Oh, so the string CAN change the energy now

[Anonymous No.14781860]

>>14781854
Nope. Google “orbital prediction error “ for thousands of papers confirming our incompetence.

You have not yet tried predictions using COAE.

You refuse to measure the moon. Why would that be?

[Anonymous No.14781864]

>>14781860
>You have not yet tried predictions using COAE.
It was shown earlier in the thread. The COAE's prediction of constant speed makes all orbits unstable.

[Anonymous No.14781866]

>>14781857
Yanking is pseudoscience.
How many years do you want to go in this stupid circle?
Just measure without fucking yanking. Wtf is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14781868]

>>14781828
Ideology is not science. Go home.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781869]

>>14781864
Nope. You showed a manufactured straw man logical fallacy argument.
Dishonesty is bad science.
Stop being dishonest.
What is wrong with you ?

[Anonymous No.14781872]

>>14781869
False. The moon falsifies COAE and you have to stop evading this fact.

[Anonymous No.14781874]

>>14781868
Stop being a creep.
Ignorance of the evidence is the behavior of a flat earthier.

[Anonymous No.14781877]

>>14781717
Ok, so then how can he logically ignore the same professor performing an experiment in trplicate that confirms COAM?

[Anonymous No.14781880]

>>14781869
How is it a strawman? You don't even know what that means.

[Anonymous No.14781881]

>>14781872
The moon confirms COAE and all you have to do is present the measurements. You are in a very awkward denial.

[Anonymous No.14781883]

>>14781860
How strange, I'm finding evidence that shows the error is far too small to be explained by this "angular energy" being conserved instead of momentum which suggests that you're just desperately grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.14781886]

>>14781877
By recognizing that one is repeatable. Or if that is impossible for you, by repeating it.

In any event, my paper has not been defeated because nobody shows 12000 rpm.

How can you behave so crazy?

[Anonymous No.14781887]

>>14781881
The moon objectively falsifies COAE.

[Anonymous No.14781888]

>>14781717
He didn't perform his own experiment.
What is the error associated with his measurements?
If we were talking about the same video then the professor continually pulled on the string, there was never a point where the r2 and w2 could be approximated.

[Anonymous No.14781889]

>>14781881
The COAE prediction is that the Moon spirals into the Earth and crashes but the Moon is in stable elliptical orbit (which can only happen if the angular momentum is conserved btw).

[Anonymous No.14781890]

>>14781874
Stop being an ideologue. Go home to your flat earth friends.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781891]

>>14781880
Stop the ad hominem. Loser

[Anonymous No.14781893]

>>14781891
Stop the ad hominem. Loser.

[Anonymous No.14781894]

>>14781886
Damn, you are either John or one dumb fuck.
What part of measurement in triplicate didn't you understand?

[Anonymous No.14781895]

>>14781883
How strange that you cheer pick and only look for what you want to see.

[Anonymous No.14781897]

>>14781895
How strange that you possess so little self awareness.

[Anonymous No.14781901]

>>14781891
How is it a strawman? You claim COAE is correct but it makes wrong predictions which makes it wrong. So clearly you were wrong about angular energy being conserved.

[Anonymous No.14781902]

>>14781887
Nope. It confirms COAE if you measure it. What is wrong with you?
Stamping your feet instead of presenting evidence is unreasonable

[Anonymous No.14781907]

>>14781744
>Why is it so difficult to just measure.
Must be very difficult as you refuse to do it yourself using your own setup.

[Anonymous No.14781908]

>>14781888
Please see the measurements below the video instead of ignorance. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

[Anonymous No.14781909]

>>14781902
COAE predicts spiral orbits that crash into the planet after half cycle. The Moon has been in an elliptical orbit for a very long time so it violates COAE.

[Anonymous No.14781911]

>>14781902
I do not need to take any measurements to see that the moon has not plummeted into the earth in the past 30 days. You have to face the fact that the moon objectively falsifies COAE.

[Anonymous No.14781913]

>>14781889
Nope. COAE does not predict that at all. Making up lies is bad science.

[Anonymous No.14781917]

>>14781913
Stop making shit up, retard. COAE predicts the moon will crash into the earth because the orbital velocity must remain constant.

[Anonymous No.14781918]

>>14781890
Fuck you ignorant moronic retard.

[Anonymous No.14781923]

>>14781704
You are probably correct. Other discussions wiuld have already delved into all caps insults and cussing.
This person is just someone who is inpersonating John, and poorly at that now.

[Anonymous No.14781924]

>>14781913
It does actually. I can give you the source code for the simulation but I'm pretty sure you're not smart enough to comprehend it.

[Anonymous No.14781925]

>>14781918
Fuck off and go back to your flat earth friends you delusional prick. Ideology is not science.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781933]

>>14781894
The part where the professor has learned to yank exactly hard enough before he could achieve this feat of 3 vaguely related results and the second anyone else pulls, it confirms COAE because that is natural but we will just overlook that be about will is bigger than nature.

[Anonymous No.14781937]

>>14781908
And what, you going to ignore the professors video confirming COAM?
I've seen his so called measurements, ive not seen how he made them.
Your impersonation of John is falling apart.

[Anonymous No.14781940]

>>14781933
Yanking does not increase force x time, retard.

[Anonymous No.14781941]

>>14781897
There is no requirement to have self awareness to make a discovery, retard. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop weaseling.

[Anonymous No.14781946]

>>14781941
>There is no requirement to have self awareness to make a discovery, retard.
John admits he's not a sentient being and is an NPC. An animal at most.

[Anonymous No.14781949]

>>14781901
I claim COAE could explain the fact that it spins faster and you try to defeat my paper by addressing the discussion section because you can’t falsify the argument you are behaving dishonestly.

[Anonymous No.14781952]

>>14781907
I measured prof Lewin and I might as well have not because you neglect it.
I have fulfilled the burden of proof and you are dishonest in asking me to mess anyway.

[Anonymous No.14781958]

>>14781949
You claimed COAE. You were wrong. Own up to it instead of making excuses.

[Anonymous No.14781959]

>>14781909
No, it does not. The energy is conserved retard. You make up stupid shit because you are being dishonest.

[Anonymous No.14781961]

>>14781952
Making excuses is unscientific retard. What the fuck is wrong with you???

[Anonymous No.14781963]

>>14781911
COAE predicts that the moon will stay in orbit simply by the fact that energy is conserved. Stop being dishonest and stupid.

[Anonymous No.14781964]

>>14781959
Stop making shit up. If the orbital velocity doesn't increase as the moon gets closer, it won't be going fast enough to orbit and therefore will crash. The moon objectively falsifies COAE.

[Anonymous No.14781965]

>>14781917
No. It does not predict that at all. The energy is conserved. Please stop being stupid dishonest?

[Anonymous No.14781967]

>>14781963
That cannot be correct because the Moon is losing potential energy when it gets closer. If its rotational energy doesn't increase then it means the energy isn't conserved.

[Anonymous No.14781968]

>>14781923
Stop the ad hominem. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14781969]

>>14781963
You cannot handwave away his proof by saying "angular energy is conserved" when it is your own assertion that angular energy is conserved and that orbital speed is constant that predicts that the moon will swiftly crash into the earth.

[Anonymous No.14781971]

>>14781961
How's the wife, John

[Anonymous No.14781972]

>>14781925
Fuck you and your evasive chicken shit ad hominem. It is dishonest.

[Anonymous No.14781976]

>>14781965
Stop making excuses and face the fact that the moon objectively refutes COAE.

[Anonymous No.14781979]

>>14781937
He fails to confirm COAM. That is what I measured, retard. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14781980]

>>14781908
Ok, wow. You are one stupid fucker.
You completely ignore his explanation prior to 23. He makes some key statements.
Im not sure what is more pathetic, the possibility of you being John or someone pretending to be him. No, pretenting is worse, much worse.

[Anonymous No.14781981]

>>14781972
Ideology is not science.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14781984]

>>14781940
Unless your apparatus is designed specifically for that.

[Anonymous No.14781987]

>>14781968
See, now we are getting somewhere.
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14781990]

>>14781946
Fuck off with your ad hominem. Loser. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.14781992]

>>14781990
Kettle calling the pot black

[Anonymous No.14781995]

>>14781952
You are poorly impersonating John.

[Anonymous No.14781997]

>>14781958
I am right. You are in denial. Stop being dishonest. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Stop being dishonest. Face the fact. Wake up. Wtf.

[Anonymous No.14782001]

>>14781933
You must have never stepped into a science lab.
That you would attempt to impersonate John in the sign you need some help.

[Anonymous No.14782004]

>>14781997
vvvv
>>14781649
COAE doesn't hold for orbits.

[Anonymous No.14782009]

>>14781997
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14782010]

>>14781961
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and you are playing dishonest childish games.

For fucking years.

You are a fucking child having a tantrum.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Why can’t you face a simple fact.

12000 rpm is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14782014]

>>14781964
COAE does not prohibit an increase in orbital velocity you lying retard. How many times must we go this circle. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14782016]

>>14782010
Fuck off with your ad hominem retard child. Wtf

[Anonymous No.14782017]

>>14781979
Wow you are really digging into this aren't you. The measured values clearly confirm COAM.
A Mensa card shouldn't be needed to perform the calculations but probably doesn't hurt.

[Anonymous No.14782019]

>>14782014
>claim velocity is constant
>get contradicted
>claim it was actually increasing all along
What game are you playing John

[Anonymous No.14782021]

>>14781967
Appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
How many times.
What is wrong with you.?
Why can’t you just face the fact that 12000 rpm is wrong. ?

[Anonymous No.14782023]

>>14781980
This is the most ignorant retarded bullshit ever. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.14782027]

>>14782021
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14782029]

>>14782021
John, you are changing your claims left and right like a wind sock. It's not possible to agree with you because you don't actually hold an opinion.
I think you just want to be angry at people so you will hold whatever opinion gets you the most attention.

[Anonymous No.14782030]

>>14781981
Fuck you and your ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.14782033]

>>14781984
None of the apparatuses in question are designed for that.

[Anonymous No.14782035]

>>14781987
You are literally insane to present the same stupid evasion over and over. What is wrong with you? Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsified COAM.

[Anonymous No.14782038]

>>14781992
Fuck you and your adhominem.
You don’t know the difference between ad hominem and insult, retard.

[Anonymous No.14782039]

>>14782019
The game he always plays, the game of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

[Anonymous No.14782040]

>>14782023
You are either impersonating or you are clearly not paying any attention to what professor is saying.

[Anonymous No.14782041]

>>14782035
Wtf stop evading with your excuses retard. Face the fact and accept the conclusion or shut up loser moron

[Anonymous No.14782046]

>>14782035
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14782047]

>>14781995
You are poorly impersonating a prejudiced unreasonable retard.

[Anonymous No.14782050]

>>14782038
Oh sorry. Didn't think I'd hurt your brain with a common phrase like that. I'll try to use simpler words next time so you're more comfortable next time, okay?

[Anonymous No.14782051]

>>14782009
Circles, retard. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.14782052]

>>14782047
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14782053]

>>14782014
You have yet to define COAE as anything other than rotational kinetic energy but somehow "with a direction". And if rotational kinetic energy does not change, and the mass does not change, neither can the orbital velocity.
You have to face the fact that the moon objectively refutes COAE.

[Anonymous No.14782054]

>>14782050
Why don’t you face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM?

[Anonymous No.14782056]

>>14782051
Well yes we are talking about a ball on a stream aren't we?

[Anonymous No.14782057]

>>14782053
You have yet to face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782058]

>>14782054
Why don't you face the fact that the moon objectively falsifies COAE?

[Anonymous No.14782059]

>>14782054
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853

[Anonymous No.14782060]

>>14782054
Oh wow, such a big boy using big words! Keep it up chump! I'm so proud of you.

[Anonymous No.14782061]

>>14782052
Circles is stupid.
Be clever and face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782064]

>>14782058
Because that delusion of yours does not change anything about the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782067]

>>14782057
You have yet to face the fact that COAM has been independently verified by multiple experiments that you refuse to refute using the scientific method.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedP40v0eDY

[Anonymous No.14782068]

>>14782060
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM no matter how much you personally insult me.

[Anonymous No.14782069]

>>14782064
Your red herring does not change the fact that angular momentum is always conserved in a closed system or that the moon objectively falsifies COAE.

[Anonymous No.14782070]

>>14782059
See http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/measure.html

[Anonymous No.14782072]

>>14782061
So wait circles is stupid?
COAM is about going in circles which is stupid as you stated which is what you've been doing for how many years now?

[Anonymous No.14782073]

>>14782056
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Stop deceiving yourself.

[Anonymous No.14782074]

>>14782073
The moon objectively refutes COAE. Stop believing in your flat earth delusions.

[Anonymous No.14782076]

>>14782070
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
Same professor performing a robust experiment. Your own damn textbook used against you.

[Anonymous No.14782077]

>>14782040
The professors are making excuses and being in denial about the most stupid obvious fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782081]

>>14782077
Yet you somehow use the same professor...

[Anonymous No.14782083]

>>14782076
Nope. Same professor yanking to try and deny his previous falsification of COAM because he is in denial that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782084]

>>14782077
You are making excuses for the fact that you cannot back up your retarded claim that not all torques exert an equal and opposite counter torque.

[Anonymous No.14782086]

>>14782074
Stop the wishful thinking imaginary evidence and measure it, retard.

Until then, 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782088]

>>14782083
Stop making excuses.

[Anonymous No.14782091]

>>14782083
He has no clue who John is, John is of no importance to him.

[Anonymous No.14782092]

>>14782072
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Going in evasive circles for years like you do is literally stupid.

[Anonymous No.14782093]

>>14782086
Last I checked the moon hadn't crashed into the earth yet. But sure, I'll go and check again just in case angular energy is conserved after all and the moon has crashed as COAE predicts.

[Anonymous No.14782097]

>>14782069
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.
You present the evasive argument, retard.

[Anonymous No.14782099]

>>14782086
>>14782093
Nope, looks like the moon is still up. But I only see a quarter of it, maybe most of it fell off? More research is required.

[Anonymous No.14782101]

>>14782097
Fuck off with your retarded evasive red herrings and demonstrate conservation of angular momentum being violated in a closed system.

[Anonymous No.14782102]

>>14782067
I only need one example to falsify the law.

You can present as many examples that are not a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm as you like and my proof still stands and COAM is still false.

[Anonymous No.14782105]

>>14782102
False. You have yet to show any example of angular momentum not being conserved in an approximately closed system. I have shown many examples of angular momentum being conserved in an approximately closed system. Your non-argument is invalid and your concession is accepted.

[Anonymous No.14782106]

>>14782101
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and is way above existing physics level of “it spins faster”.
Double standards retard.

[Anonymous No.14782107]

>>14782092
Ive only known of john for a month.
Damn are you way off base.

[Anonymous No.14782108]

>>14782106
Fuck off with your retarded evasive red herrings and demonstrate conservation of angular momentum being violated in a closed system.

[Anonymous No.14782110]

>>14782105
I have shown that the establishment demonstration falsifies COAM.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782111]

>>14782102
>I only need one example to falsify the law
Nope.
You need multiple examples from multiple persons, using different setups to confirm.

[Anonymous No.14782113]

>>14782110
You have not shown any example of angular momentum not being conserved in an approximately closed system. Stop being delusional.

[Anonymous No.14782116]

>>14782110
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
John cant hide from his own references.

[Anonymous No.14782119]

>>14782108
I don’t have to. You have to show a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm. You can’t change the rules after the fact. That is shifting the goalposts.

ESTABLISHED DEMONSTRATION, retard.

[Anonymous No.14782122]

>>14782116
Retard
12000 rpm = COAM false.

[Anonymous No.14782124]

>>14782113
I chose the existing example and you are claiming that my proof that physics is wrong is wrong because physics is wrong.

In the same stupid retarded circle for fuckjng yearz.


What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14782131]

>>14782111
Nope. I only need one example and you have to repeat my example. Or accept my independent results

[Anonymous No.14782133]

>>14782119
Fuck off with your idiotic red herring.

[Anonymous No.14782138]

>>14782107
Well then you are spoon fed the same shit. Can’t you you think for yourself?

Either that or you are just dishonest.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14782139]

>>14782124
No, I am not claiming physics is wrong. I am saying physics is right and that all experiments show that angular momentum is conserved in a closed system. Can't you read?

[Anonymous No.14782142]

>>14782133
Insane retard.
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

[Anonymous No.14782143]

>>14782142
Fuck off with your delusional red herring.

[Anonymous No.14782144]

>>14782139
Well you are literally claiming that the existing example which I used to prove my claim is not an example of COAM. That is unreasonable evading

[Anonymous No.14782148]

>>14782144
No, I am saying that you are wrong and physics is right and that all experiments show that angular momentum is conserved in a closed system. Can't you read?

[Anonymous No.14782150]

>>14782143
The argument is that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM. You telling me that my presenting my argument is red herring, is unreasonable

[Anonymous No.14782154]

>>14782150
Fuck off with your moronic and irrelevant red herring.

[Anonymous No.14782156]

>>14782148
You are making up fantasies. All experimental evidence falsifies COAM.

[Anonymous No.14782159]

>>14782156
False. Your delusions cannot change the fact that all experimental evidence shows that angular momentum is conserved in a closed system.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedP40v0eDY

[Anonymous No.14782162]

>>14782154
Please stop behaving like a child having a tantrum.
This is uncommunicative and plain evading

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Face the fact.

[Anonymous No.14782167]

>>14782162
The only one throwing a tantrum here is you, John.
And fuck off with your retarded red herring.

[Anonymous No.14782171]

>>14782159
Nope. You present no experiment. All you have is evidence which has been manufactured with bias.
12000 rpm has not been shown to be correct so COAM is falsified. Face the simple fact

[Anonymous No.14782174]

>>14782167
You are the one behaving uncommunicative and evasive.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

Face it.

[Anonymous No.14782182]

>>14782171
The only bias is (you). I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.14782196]

>>14782138
See https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
See >>14751853
John's own references fuck him in the ass, you too.

[Anonymous No.14782611]

>>14782196
Circular ignorant moron.
You have failed to show 12000 rpm, so you lose.
That is fact.

[Anonymous No.14782613]

>>14782196
Defeated again. You fail to show 12000 rpm so yoj lose. Denial is bad science.

[Anonymous No.14782616]

>>14782182
12000 rpm falsifies COAM no matter how much that makes you upset and stamping your feet on the ground.

COAM is false face the fact

[Anonymous No.14782684]

>>14782616
False. Experiments following the scientific method prove angular momentum is conserved and throwing a senseless tantrum about "manipulation" doesn't change reality.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedP40v0eDY

[Anonymous No.14782742]

>>14782684
False. Not a single peer reviewed experiment exists here, so it doesn’t count. It is motivated reasoning and does not address my paper because it does not show 12000 rpm.

Grow up and stop acting like a little girl that doesn’t want to know that Father Christmas isn’t real.

[Anonymous No.14782752]

>>14782742
Stop moving the goalposts and face reality.

[Anonymous No.14782755]

>>14782752
Reality does not do 12000 rpm. You are the one shifting the goalposts.

Why are you anti-science?

[Anonymous No.14782775]

>>14782755
You're shifting the goalposts because you keep bringing up irrelevant red herrings. You have to face the fact that the scientific method has proven angular momentum is conserved. Shitting your pants in anger will not change this.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedP40v0eDY

[Anonymous No.14782777]

>>14782775
The scientific method is to reject theory which makes bad predictions and 12000 rpm is a bad prediction. So COAM is false.

[Anonymous No.14782780]

>>14782742
>peer reviewed experiment
as opposed to your mere disbelief?

[Anonymous No.14782787]

>>14782780
As opposed to your presentation of evidence developed in response to my paper with intent to contradict my paper.

Biased evidence is pseudoscience.

The only thing that can falsify my paper is showing a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm. The reason that you have nothing to counter my paper and scientists literally adopt pseudoscience is because I am right.

COAM is false.

[Anonymous No.14782791]

>>14782777
12000 rpm is a sensible prediction assuming no external torques given that the scientific method has proven that angular momentum is conserved when there are no external torques.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedP40v0eDY

[Anonymous No.14782795]

>>14782791
If 12000 rpm is sensible then why don’t you or your cohorts show it?

Very simple. It is impossible and definitely doesn’t happen all the time as it would if the theory was right.

Why are you so unscientific?

Are you even related to a scientist?

[Anonymous No.14782811]

>>14782795
your retarded red herring has already been addressed. angular momentum has been shown to always be conserved in closed systems.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedP40v0eDY

[Anonymous No.14782815]

>>14782811
Nope. There is absolutely no reason that any of those are “closed systems” unless of course a ball on a string is also a “closed system”. Retard.

You fail to falsify my maths.

COAM is false.

Grow up

[Anonymous No.14782852]

>>14782815
They are pretty decent approximations of closed systems, unlike a ball on a string.
https://youtu.be/vhl__wx18Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64t-dVtDwkQ
https://youtu.be/ytX_AWkyoCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8dNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vedP40v0eDY
And you have yet to falsify reality btw. An argument from incredulity is not proof that reality is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14782872]

>>14782787
>The only thing that can falsify my paper is showing a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm. The reason that you have nothing to counter my paper and scientists literally adopt pseudoscience is because I am right.
nobody cares until you perform the experiment. we have no reason to doubt COAM. your howling disbelief is no reason at all.
>COAM is false.
the moon is crashing on earth, then. dawn of the final day.

[Anonymous No.14782892]

>>14782872
I perform the experiment here and it does not do 12000 rpm, retard.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

[Anonymous No.14782894]

>>14782852
If any of those approximates a closed system then so does a ball on a string, retard.

[Anonymous No.14782907]

>>14782894
You don't even know what a closed system is

[Anonymous No.14782922]

>>14782907
I know that a if ball on a string is not closed then none of those bullshit “experiments” you present are closed.
Moron.

Now fuck you and your ad hominem you piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.14782950]

>>14782922
So you don't know what a closed system is.

[Anonymous No.14782960]

>>14782950
Of course I know what it is moron now fuck you and your evasive ad hominem you bad loser

[Anonymous No.14782969]

>>14782892
news to me. last thread you said you did not perform it. you will remember, when I asked you if you set it up to be as frictionless as possible, and also about how did you measure the rotation rate.
also, point to the exact place within your site, not to some general 'Physics' page.

[Anonymous No.14782989]

>>14782969
See the video moron. Fuck you and your ad hominem you shit

[Anonymous No.14782991]

>>14782969
Your evidence is “it spins Faster” double standard twit.

[Anonymous No.14783026]

>>14782969
You can ask whatever you like about my layman demonstration and it will never defeat my paper which objectively falsifies COAM.

[Anonymous No.14783095]

>>14782991
my evidence is that physics works. pretty much all of our current physics would crash and burn if COAM was not true. counterargument: insane clown with delusions of grandeur and whacky ideas like the Moon having a constant orbital speed does not believe it. it's an easy judgment: you are so wrong it may not be possible to be more wrong than you are.

[Anonymous No.14783104]

John, your idea forbids centripetal forces from existing. Meaning that radial acceleration cannot ever happen.
How do you account for that?

[Anonymous No.14783115]

>>14783095
Your “evidence” is wishful thinking speculation, retard.

[Anonymous No.14783118]

>>14783104
Total fantasy. Wtf. Are you even anything more scientific than a hairdresser?

[Anonymous No.14783122]

>>14783115
do you understand that COAM can be derived from more elementary physics, which therefore would have to be wrong for COAM to be wrong?
you probably don't.
one more thing: you don't have to sign all your posts with "retard", putting it at the end of the text. put it in the name field, that way you don't have to repeat it.

[Anonymous No.14783125]

>>14783122
Yes, I do understand that you make an appeal to tradition logical fallacy argument and are totally neglecting the 12000 rpm, like a flat earther.

You and your cohorts do it in circles. For fucking years retard.

Grow up and Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM

[Anonymous No.14783133]

>>14783125
do you or do you not understand that if COAM wasn't true, then much, perhaps all of physics would also be wrong and we could not make a single step without noticing this?
come on, this is a simple yes or no question.

[Anonymous No.14783141]

>>14783133
Do you understand that your speculation is pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.14783187]

>>14783118
I actually work as a researcher.

[Anonymous No.14783194]

>>14783187
Well then start behaving like one instead of behaving like a fucking retard. Measure a ball on a string without yanking and accept that it obeys COAE.

[Anonymous No.14783208]

>>14783141
yes or no, that is the question.
it's fascinating. part of you know you are completely, ridiculously wrong and another part does not allow you to accept this. the internal tension breaks out as aggression against everyone else.

[Anonymous No.14783218]

>>14783208
I am not wrong. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Your wishful thinking ignorance. Counts for fuck all.

Face the facts like a grown up.