[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 87 KB, 960x1391, RedSquare_Tuthill_960.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14807209 No.14807209 [Reply] [Original]

Explain it.

Protip: you can't.

>> No.14807223

I don't have to explain shit to you

>> No.14807246

A leading progenitor hypothesis for the square nebula is that the central star or stars somehow expelled cones of gas during a late developmental stage. For MWC 922, these cones happen to incorporate nearly right angles and be visible from the sides.

>> No.14807261

>>14807246
>somehow expelled cones of gas during a late developmental stage
But how? Absurdly strong magnetic field?

>> No.14807267

>>14807209
Perhaps when scientists accept that angular momentum is not conserved and rewrite physics from the ground up, then they might be able to explain it. As things are, though scientists can’t even explain a ball on a string or an ice skater reasonably.

>> No.14807404

>>14807267
>scientists can’t even explain a ball on a string
qrd?

>> No.14807406

>>14807246
I bet it's not even square-shaped and this is going to end up being something stupid that reminds people of gravitational lensing or some such.

>> No.14807410

>>14807404
1+1 = 1. its all a matter of polarity brother. do your own research.
dont you listen to these classical physics mongaloids

>> No.14807494

>>14807261
Two stars colliding head on at immense speeds

>> No.14807529

>>14807209
pronoun
1. used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
"a room with two beds in it"
2. used to identify a person.
"it's me"

>> No.14807552

>>14807494
Not probable.

>> No.14807562

>>14807209
Obviously ayyys

>> No.14807587

>>14807209
it's the cube thing from transformers

>> No.14807607

>>14807404
It's Mandlbait

>> No.14807619
File: 21 KB, 236x291, 1492441145036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14807619

>>14807552
>Not probable.
The universe doesn't operate with probabilities

>> No.14807633

>>14807209
You have no idea how much hate is inside that thing. . .

>> No.14807635

>>14807209
Don't worry about it, fellow human being.

>> No.14807647

>>14807619
neither with human's observation

>> No.14807652

>>14807607
Nope. It is simple fact. You wanting to deny the facts causes you to denigrate the facts and insult the person presenting them. Zombie.

>> No.14807653

>>14807404
Please see the thought experiment in this paper. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>> No.14807665

>>14807652
Go bait somewhere else, John.

>> No.14807671

>>14807647
Okay? That doesn't say anything about the possibility of two stars colliding.

>> No.14807673

>>14807665
I am not baiting. I am being honest and presenting a truth.

The fact that you feel baited when confronted with truth is because your beliefs are stupid.

Zombie.

>> No.14807687

>>14807673
You can stop baiting as John now. It stopped being funny months ago.

>> No.14807690

>>14807687
I am deadly serious. So it is about time you stopped thinking it is funny because that is fucking ignorant zombie behavior.

>> No.14807694

>>14807687
He's not kidding you're just an idiot. Cope.

>>14807552
>Not probable
For a star to collide with a star? Okay bud

>> No.14807695

>>14807690
Good impersonation, but pretending to be Mandlbaur just isn't funny anymore, you can stop wasting your time.

>> No.14807701

>>14807695
This is the hardest cope I've ever seen and I've been on /pol/ and /x/

>> No.14807703

>>14807695
You must be one of those delusional wishful thinking mindless fucking zombies.

>> No.14807705

>>14807703
Uhh yeah sure, as you say larper.

>> No.14807708

>>14807694
>Two stars colliding head on at immense speeds
Yes

>> No.14807712

>>14807708
>Two stars colliding head on at immense speeds
The only way this could possibly happen is if a blackhole slung shot one into another.

>> No.14807713

Get out of my thread you schizo nigger

>> No.14807717

>>14807713
He wont.

>> No.14807718

>>14807712
Is there a massive black hole close to the red square nebula?
No.

>> No.14807725

>>14807718
Then it is not two stars colling at high speed. How do two massive stationary objects gain speed without something pushing them?

Only thing that could do it is the gravity from a supermassive blackhole.

>> No.14807730

>>14807725
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not arguing with you.

>> No.14807758

>>14807673
>something stupid
>"that's stupid"
>zombie!
im actually starting to like this schizo now. everything he says is pretty fun bait

>> No.14807772

>>14807758
Please stop the slander and admit that angular momentum is not conserved.

>> No.14807776

>>14807772
Emmy Noether says what?

>> No.14807803

>>14807694
>>14807701
It's not everyday you meet someone larping as a Mandlbaur fan.

>> No.14807814

>>14807803
It is not a fan. It is a human being still capable of recognizing reality in a land of zombies. Together we are going to turn all you zombies into humans by infecting you with truth.

12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>> No.14807820

>>14807776
Emmy Noether made the same mistake as ever other physicist in history. Assuming angular momentum is conserved because they have seen things spin faster and not bother to measure them.

I measured, and found out they are wrong.

>> No.14807825

>>14807820
She didn't ASSUME angular momentum is conserved. She PROVED, mathematically, that whenever rotational symmetry exists, angular momentum MUST BE conserved.

>> No.14807831

>>14807820
I suggest you read about Noether's theorem, which is a proven mathematical theorem. One of its consequences is that COAM not being true would mean that space is not symmetrical with respect to rotations. Since this isn't the case, one must conclude that COAM is true.

>> No.14807833

>>14807825
By first assuming that angular momentum is conserved because she saw something spin faster and totally neglecting to measure it, just like every physicist in history before and since her.

>> No.14807838

>>14807831
You can conclude that coam is true, devoid of evidence, as much as you like.

Measure it honestly and find out that angular energy is conserved.

>> No.14807855

>>14807833
I have no idea what inspired her to create her theorem, but the fact is it's a theorem. The math checks out. Rotational symmetry necessitates conservation of angular momentum and vice versa.

So are you saying that the universe is not rotationally symmetric?

>> No.14807862

>>14807838
If Noether's theorem, although valid, doesn't convince you, you can always start from the definition of radial force F=kr, where F and r are vectors, and k is a scalar factor. By differentiating the vector L with respect to time you eventually conclude that dL/dt=0 whenever the force acting on the object is purely radial.

>> No.14807863 [DELETED] 

>>14807772
Here's your (you)

>> No.14807867
File: 28 KB, 400x400, cVvGXde7_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14807867

>>14807772
Here's your (you)

>> No.14807869

>>14807863
Are you mentally challenged?

>> No.14807877
File: 29 KB, 512x512, John-Mandlbaur.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14807877

>>14807869
Are you?

>> No.14807878

>>14807862
I measured and found out that angular energy is conserved. Is this difficult for you to understand. Reality disagrees with COAM therefore it is wrong.

>> No.14807881

Hey John, why does it look like you're constipated 24/7. Lack of angular momentum in your bowels?

>> No.14807888

>>14807855
I am saying that if you think her maths is proof, then you have to treat my maths as proof. Accept that COAM is falsified.
Here is my maths. http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>> No.14807890

>>14807878
That has little to do with my post. Newton's laws directly imply COAM, and a simple analysis as I just described it clearly shows that.

>> No.14807891

>>14807888
I ain't clicking that shit nigga

>> No.14807896
File: 21 KB, 320x240, 0A43CBAE-08C1-4396-8BCC-2E18DD48FFDC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14807896

>>14807877
No, I am gifted.

>> No.14807898

>>14807881
Stop the childish slander and face up to the self evident fact that COAM predicts 12000 rpm, which falsifies it.

>> No.14807899

>>14807896
John is so smart he can't even take photos in correct orientation.

>> No.14807903

>>14807899
Please stop with the ad hominid attacks

>> No.14807906

>>14807888
Have you ever heard the story of the time Pauli was given a paper written by a promising undergraduate? His reaction was "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Your math is not even wrong.

>> No.14807911

>>14807890
You understand that reality is what we are trying to model, right?

We are supposed to judge our theory, by how well it predicts reality. Not the other way around you backward Zombie.

>> No.14807915

>>14807891
Of course not, because you are are too shit scared to admit that angular momentum is not conserved because you must be a
Faggot zombie.

>> No.14807917

>>14807906
Falsify it then instead of stupid slander.

>> No.14807919

>just wanted to have a thread about a peculiar supernova
>gigaschizo stumbles upon thread and derails it
Thank you /sci/

>> No.14807924

>>14807915
What's with all the Ad Eminem attacks John?

>> No.14807923

>>14807911
Please don't be offensive. Since Newton's laws adequately describe reality, it makes sense to start from them and, through reasoning, derive COAM.

>> No.14807928

>>14807919
Fake Butthurt in denial zombie.

>> No.14807933

>>14807917
There's nothing about it that's right.

>> No.14807934

>>14807923
You are literally offended by the truth that COAM does not reasonably predict reality.

>> No.14807935

>>14807833
>Angular momentum schizo cannot into symmetries
I'm sure this comes as an immense shock to everyone.

>> No.14807938

>>14807924
It is impossible for me to make an adhominem attack against a person who is evading the argument.
You are busy evading the argument making an ad hominem attack.

Stop behaving badly.
Just admit that angular momentum is not conserved.

>> No.14807942

>>14807933
I can also just say that about Noether’s maths.

>> No.14807943

>>14807934
Why are you saying that I'm offended? I'm not. Please don't be so abrasive, I was just having a discussion with you.

>> No.14807946

>>14807935
The fact that you use ad hominem and run away chicken from the argument is admitting you are the loser of the debate and being a bad loser.

>> No.14807950

>>14807942
You could say it, but you'd be wrong.

>> No.14807951

>>14807943
You can’t accuse me of being offensive unless you are offended. Zombie.

>> No.14807952

>>14807950
Well you are wrong about my maths.

>> No.14807960

>>14807952
Ok boomer.

>> No.14807967

>>14807951
I'm not offended by your argument about COAM, but rather by your personal insults which really don't add anything valuable to the discussion. And it's still possible to be offensive, even if the other person doesn't care.

>> No.14807968

someone post it

>> No.14807970

>>14807960
Are you mentally challenged?
If you can say it and that disproves my maths, then I can say it and disprove Noether’s maths. You fucking dumbass zombie.

You have to point out an equation number in my maths and explain the error within it which stands up to rebuttal, or accept the conclusion because my maths must be treated with the same standards that you expect me to treat Noether’s with. You double standard zombie.

>> No.14807972

>>14807967
I have never made a personal insult that was not in response to being personally insulted and my behavior to your neglect of my discovery is not evidence. Stop squirming and Face the fact that COAM is falsified.

>> No.14807976

>>14807972
You constantly insult even random people who don't even know you.

>> No.14807977

>>14807968
Stop the ad hominem.

>> No.14807978

>>14807209
Meteoroid damage.

>> No.14807980

>>14807976
I have never insulted anyone that did not first insult me and it is fucking irrelevant to the fact that COAM is false.
Stop the ad hominem.
It is disgusting behavior.

>> No.14807981

>>14807972
Well you called me a zombie a couple times even if I never insulted you. Regarding COAM, you still haven't addressed my argument that Newton's laws imply COAM.

>> No.14807988

>>14807981
I have totally defeated your argument because it is illogical and does not address my argument. If I called you a zombie, it is because you are mindlessly desperately trying to convince me that angular momentum is conserved instead of considering the possibility that the reason you cannot defeat my argument is because I am right.

>> No.14807990

>>14807978
Damage to what? A freaking star?

>> No.14807991

>>14807970
Well first of all angular momentum isn't measured in revolutions per anything.

>> No.14807992

John, I have a picture of your bumhole.

>> No.14807993

>>14807991
Imaginary errors that don’t exist in my paper don’t count. You straight out deceitful zombie.

>> No.14807995

>>14807988
How have you defeated it? My argument is that since Newton's laws are valid and since they imply COAM, then COAM must be true. What premise do you disagree with, that Newton's laws are valid, or that they imply COAM?

>> No.14807997

>>14807992
Stop the ad hominem.
Face the fact that COAM is false.
Psycho zombie.

>> No.14808004

>>14807995
How does that address my proof.
You understand that if you contradict the conclusion of a logical argument then you are being illogical, right?

>> No.14808011

>>14807997
>hominem
Did you just call me an ape?

>> No.14808019

>>14808004
I'm simply presenting the consequences of Newton's laws. The fact that these consequences contradict your conclusion means that either of us is wrong. Since you claim that COAM is false, then either Newton's laws aren't valid, or the proof that they imply COAM has an error. I'm asking you to point out the fault in my reasoning.

>> No.14808024

>>14807993
Ok boomer.

>> No.14808027

>>14808019
Newton was a Christian zombie and a retarded alchemist

>> No.14808032

>>14807209
Looks like something caught by the damaged mirror...

...or a quasar having a bad day.

>> No.14808037

>>14808032
It's neither
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Square_Nebula

>> No.14808813

>>14808024
Do you think that telling me my age is insulting, nitwit?

Are you afraid of the truth that you have to make up nonsensical insults that aren’t insults.

Zombie.

>> No.14808820

>>14808019
The fault in your reasoning is that you are neglecting to address my paper, so you are literally abandoning reason.

This is a red herring, appeal to tradition evasive argument which is also directly illogical because it does not falsify my paper at all.

All that you do is highlight that my proof which proves physics wrong, contradicts existing physics. Which is fucking obvious.

Are you mentally challenged?

Please address the evidence?

>> No.14808822

>>14808011
No, called you a person who is behaving disgustingly and evading the evidence like a flat earther.

Please face the fact that COAM is false instead of trying to shoot the messenger?

>> No.14808914

>>14807209
alien child shining a flashlight into the sky (don't judge, you did it too.)

>> No.14808934

>>14808822
Your incessant ad hominid attacks betray that you are losing the argument.

>> No.14808965

>>14808934
It is not possible to commit ad hominem against a person who is refusing to address the argument, zombie.

Grow the fuck up and face the fucking facts like a scientifically minded person instead of a child having a tantrum.

>> No.14808969

>>14808965
Your ad hominid attacks are not an argument and therefore do not need to be addressed.

>> No.14808973

>>14808969
My argument is here : http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

Address it or fuck off you stinking evasive insulting cunt.

>> No.14808989

>>14808973
Stop evading the fact that ad hominid attacks are invalid and not reasonable behavior, okay?

>> No.14808999

>>14808989
Well then stop making ad hominem attacks by falsely accusing me of them and address the argument.

>> No.14809073

>>14807209
Difraction spikes maybe even instrument reflection plus spikes

>> No.14809098

I fucking hate schizophrenics on /sci/.
Anywhere else, they have my sympathy.
On /sci/, fucking gas them all.

>> No.14809112

>>14807406
its lens distortion, and released for click bait so they can get more funding

>> No.14809128

>>14808999
It is not ad hominem to correctly identify ad hominem. Stop trolling.

>> No.14809134

>>14809128
It is ad hominem to accuse a person of ad hominem when you are too stupid to recognize the difference between ad hominem and insult you fuckjng idiot.

Now either address the argument or fuck off you you badly behaved stinking cunt.

>> No.14809136

>>14809098
Well since you believe that angular momentum is conserved and you have never seen any evidence confirming it, you are the definition of a schitzo.

Do you hate yourself ?

>> No.14809164

>>14809134
It is ad hominem to insult someone instead of making an argument. Since you have only given insults and no arguments, that is ad hominem by definition.

>> No.14809197

>>14808820
My reasoning is independent of your paper, so it's not a fault that it does not address it. Still, if the conclusion contradicts your paper then there should be an error in my reasoning itself. This means that if COAM is false, as you say, then either Newton's laws are false, or the fact that they imply COAM is false, or even both. These are simply the consequences of your paper, so you must accept at least one of them. Which of these do you accept?

>> No.14809226

>>14809197
Yes, and independent reasoning from my paper is direct admission that you are evading my paper.

Stop evading and address my paper.

Otherwise you are simply ignoring the evidence like a flat earther.

Are you a flat earther?

Then address my paper.

>> No.14809265

>>14809226
I'm not evading your paper, I'm simply pointing out its consequences. If your paper is correct and COAM is false, then Newton's laws are false. This however can't be, since Newton's laws are a perfectly valid model of classical physics and have been widely confirmed by countless experiments. If you insist that COAM is false then you have to put forward another theory for classical physics, different from Newton's laws, which correctly explains physical phenomena, just like Newton's laws. Until then, you'll have a hard time convincing people of your claim.

>> No.14809279

>>14807209
holy fuck this thread is garbage

does anyone have the full image?

>> No.14809290
File: 459 KB, 2144x1664, sharp lines.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14809290

Its just a star with two planes of rotation for its orbiting matter. Planets are still forming in this system and instead of a simple planar disc, this star has enough mass to support two orbiting discs of matter

>> No.14809344

>>14809265
You are literally evading my paper.

You present red-herring appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

You also present an “asking the opponent to do irrelevant sh**t” logical fallacy.

I can falsify a theory without presenting a replacement theory.

Stop evading the evidence like a flat earther and face the simple obvious fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, like a grown up instead of the childish tantrum illogical behavior.

>> No.14809377

>>14809344
You're saying that using Newton's laws is an appeal to tradition? There's a reason that Newton's laws are widely accepted and used in classical physics, and that is because they work. Since COAM being false contradicts Newton's laws, it is your burden to present an alternative model that explains all of classical physics phenomena. And please stop swearing and insulting, it doesn't make you look any more convincing.

>> No.14809385

>>14809377
No. I am saying that your act of saying “but Newton’s laws” is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and you have failed to falsify my proof and are evading my proof.

Which is flat earther behavior.

>> No.14809387

>>14809385
I take it that you reject Newton's laws then, since they imply COAM?

>> No.14809391

>>14809387
Your ad hominem speculation is irrelevant.

Address my paper.

>> No.14809398

>>14809391
There is no ad hominem here, I'm not talking about you personally, I'm saying that if someone, anyone, believed COAM to be false then they would necessarily have to reject Newton's laws. It is simply a consequence of your paper. Or have you found a way to make Newton's laws consistent with COAM being false? If so, by all means speak, it would be very interesting.

>> No.14809421

>>14809398
You are simply neglecting my paper, so you will neglect any other as well.

But if you are so obsessed with the irrelevant to my paper mistaken connection to n2, then here is where the problem lies:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363091439_Newtons_second_law_is_technically_disproven

>> No.14809429

>>14807209
Maybe it's emitting radiation while spinning unusually fast.

>> No.14809430

>>14807406
Looks conical.

>> No.14809433

>>14809421
I read your argument against Newton's second law. There is however one mistake you are making. The new velocity vector caused by an acceleration vector applied to a body is not simply obtained by vector addition as you say. It is more complicated than that. The acceleration vector gives you the derivative of velocity with respect to time along its various x y z components. To find the equation of the velocity vector over time you have to solve a system of three differential equations, one for each axis. If you carry out the calculation, you will find that Newton's second law correctly describes uniform circular motion. If you want, I can write down the calculation for you.

>> No.14809451

>>14809433
No. Direct application of n2 is “as simple as that”. You are doing slight of hand maths. Which is once again evading my paper.

Are you capable of addressing an argument which makes a conclusion that contradicts your beliefs, or are you a flat earther?

>> No.14809461

>>14809451
Again, no. Application of Newton's second law requires solving differential equations, which still involves vector components. At no point however is vector addition performed. Vector addition is used when adding two velocity vectors together, or two acceleration vectors, or two distance vectors. It can't however be used to derive the equations of motion.

>> No.14809478

>>14809461
Nope. Application of n2 requires that f=ma. Dumbo.

>> No.14809484

>>14807820
From X axioms follows Y conclusions. Noether theorem follows from certain axioms and one of the is not assumimg angular momentum is conserved. Take a look and tell me wich one of those axioms is satisfied by our physical world, or whats the place in wich the proof fails. It follows from lorentz transformations

>> No.14809485

>>14809478
Yes, of course, but that has little to do with what I'm saying. Vector addition is valid only when you're adding vectors of the same kind, for example two distances, or two velocities, or two accelerations. An example is when you're adding force vectors to find the resultant force vector on a point mass. What you can't do with vector addition is derive the equations of motion of a body, that is, the position and velocity of a body at any given time. To do that, you have to solve a system of differential equations, as any physics book will tell you in the kinematics chapter. This refutes your disproof of Newton's second law.

>> No.14809487

>>14809429
>Maybe it's emitting radiation
No shit?
>while spinning unusually fast
That's not a reasonable explanation for the two cones.

>> No.14809488

>>14809485
Read my proof properly and point out an error within it, or accept the conclusion because you must be mentally challenged if you think you can make fake vague accusations about mismatched vector addition that is not specified in my paper.

Face facts or fuck off, weasel.

>> No.14809497

>>14809488
It was you who brought vector addition in the discussion, with your argument against Newton's second law. If you can't refute Newton's laws, then you must accept COAM.

>> No.14809502

>>14809497
The vector addition in my paper is not mismatched. N2 is false.

>> No.14809505

>>14809488
>>14809497
>>14809502
Worthless talentless college kiddies kys

>> No.14809510

>>14809502
Unfortunately it is. I suggest you open your physics textbook on the chapter about kinematics, or even read the wikipedia article about the equations of motion. You'll find that they both agree with me.

>> No.14809512

>>14809478
Might want to take a calculus class, John. There are no downsides to that.

>> No.14809513

>>14809505
Nope. I am standing my ground that my paper must be addressed and he is evading like a child having a tantrum. And you appear to be beating the drum in support of his evasive childishness.

Why don’t you behave like an adult and address the presented paper?

>> No.14809514

>>14809510
No. It is not. You are simply a lying piece of stinking shit. FUCK YOU

>> No.14809516

>>14809478
[math]F=ma[/math] doesn't let you add different class vectors together. Just like you can't add time to mass or voltage to pressure, you can't add acceleration to velocity. If you want to solve for velocity from acceleration you need to integrate that acceleration with respect to time to obtain velocity. When acceleration (or force) is constant, that integration boils down to multiplying acceleration by time, however, the force in circular motion is not constant at all so you cannot do that.

>> No.14809518

>>14809514
Why are you insulting me? I have never insulted you. Also, swearing isn't an argument. But really, I do recommend you to read about the equation of motions. Here's a good starting point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion

>> No.14809520

>>14809512
My paper is calculus you ignorant fucking disgusting insulting moron.

>> No.14809521

>>14809520
Sorry, but which part of it? I fail to see it anywhere in any of your papers.

>> No.14809523

>>14809516
Where exactly do you see me adding two different class vectors?

Lying zombie.

>> No.14809526

>>14809521
For any value of delta t, the resulting vector is larger in magnitude than the original velocity.
Zombie.

>> No.14809528

>>14809518
Lying about my work is fucking insulting you cunt.

>> No.14809532

>>14809526
Except the acceleration changes for any non-zero delta t so you can't do it without using the tools of calculus. If you do the calculation, you will find that acceleration perpendicular to velocity does not affect the magnitude of velocity and only changes direction.

>> No.14809534

>>14809523
You didn't integrate the acceleration to get velocity, that's for sure.

>> No.14809535

>>14809532
It is calculus you idiot zombie.

>> No.14809539

>>14809534
Of course I do. Zombie. Read the fucking paper, zombie

>> No.14809543

>>14809528
When did I ever lie about your work? You gave an argument against N2, and I pointed out an error in your reasoning, which stems from a misunderstanding of yours about the equations of motion. If you want to disprove N2, you'll have to use another argument. Please stop insulting me.

>> No.14809563

Stop it with the ad eminems, John.

>> No.14809564

>>14809543
You have made a false claim of an error which you cannot directly point out so you are lying through your teeth.

>> No.14809571

>>14809564
You mean the error about vector addition being misused? Of course I can directly point it out: vector addition between the acceleration and velocity vector is incorrect and can't be used to derive the equations of motion of a point mass. To do that, you need to solve a system of differential equations. Not only have I pointed it out, it is even amply documented, both on the wikipedia article I posted and on physics textbooks. That's just how the vector math works.

>> No.14809574

>>14809571
Please point out where in my paper I make such an addition, lying zombie?

>> No.14809581

>>14809574
You imply it by saying the velocity increases. Meanwhile that's not true for perpendicular force and it only occurs if you mindlessly add vectors together even though you can't do that.

>> No.14809582

>>14809574
I'm talking about your disproof of N2, which you sent me before:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363091439_Newtons_second_law_is_technically_disproven

You used this argument to reject N2, since COAM being false contradicts Newton's laws. I'm pointing out an error in this argument: ergo your disproof of N2 is not valid.

>> No.14809587

>>14809581
Bulkshit is pseudoscience. Quote my paper where I mismatch vectors or admit that your argument is false.

Behave reasonably.

>> No.14809589

>>14809582
Quote the part where I mismatch vectors and stop lying you piece of shit.

Wtf???

>> No.14809590

>>14809587
I already pointed out what is wrong. Integrating perpendicular acceleration does not affect the magnitude of velocity therefore your argument that perpendicular acceleration increases velocity is wrong.

>> No.14809601

>>14809590
Your claim is just the made up bullshit that I have called sleight of hand maths.
Integrating the perpendicular acceleration cannot possibly result in no increase to the velocity because no matter how small dt, the resultant velocity is larger than original.

N2 is disproved.

>> No.14809603

>>14809589
Here, let me quote the abstract:
>Newton's second law dictates that a force applied perpendicular to the momentum of a mass produces a perpendicular acceleration to the mass which results in a perpendicular component of velocity which must be vectorially added to the initial velocity to get the final velocity of the mass which is now larger in magnitude and has a changed direction.
More specifically:
>a perpendicular acceleration to the mass which results in a perpendicular component of velocity which must be vectorially added to the initial velocity
Your mistake is assuming that the perpendicular acceleration vector gives rise to a perpendicular velocity vector, which then you add to initial velocity vector. This is wrong: the correct approach is to solve the system of differential equations given by the acceleration and velocity vectors. If you do that, you'll find that N2 correctly predicts the behaviour of a point mass under centripetal force

>> No.14809605

>>14809601
>no matter how small dt
Take a calculus class.

>> No.14809607

>>14809603
You are literally claiming that my “mistake is to apply n2. Zombie.

Fuck off with your bullshit

>> No.14809612

>>14809605
I have studied calculus and I know that you are lying to yourself and imagining that you can minimize a positive value to zero. Now fuck you and your ad hominem you stinking cunt.

Face the fact that you cannot falsify my paper instead of insulting me cunt zombie.

>> No.14809613

>>14809607
That is not what I'm saying, please don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that you do not understand correctly vector kinematics.

>> No.14809617

>>14809613
What you are saying is that you cannot defeat my argument so you personally insult me instead you piece of stinking shit. FUCK YOU.

>> No.14809618

>>14809612
I am not insulting you. I don't know why you are saying that.
For any non-zero perpendicular velocity, you can find such a small dt for which this perpendicular velocity is smaller. Which means that it will always approach zero for smaller dt. So at the limit, the perpendicular velocity is 0. The solution is a constant speed circular motion.
If you have studied calculus you should already know about limits. But you have problems with even with simple vector operators which are much simpler than calculus so I doubt that.

>> No.14809626

>>14809618
Irrelevant of your imagination that you can minimize a positive value to zero, you are incorrect and unscientific to accept that bullshit.

N2 is false because it predicts ever increasing angular velocity which is unrealistic. Face the fact zombie.

>> No.14809628

>>14809617
I'm not personally insulting you. I'm just pointing out faults in your argument. The fact that it's you who's presenting the argument is irrelevant. In this case, the fault is misusing vector addition.

>> No.14809630

>>14809626
You can minimize this value as close to 0 as you want, 0 being the limit.

>> No.14809634

>>14809630
Nope. It will never reach zero unless dr is zero. The result is positive so n2 is false. Face facts and stop presenting the same defeated argument over and over again in circles like a clown wiht one foot nailed to the floor.

Face up to reality.

>> No.14809637

>>14809628
You are lying about a mistake that you cannot identify and that is insulting.
Can you not understand that making up lies about mistakes that don’t exist is unreasonable and frustrating to the victim?

>> No.14809644

>>14809634
There is no lower limit higher than 0 so nothing is stopping you from making dt as small as you need. You can solve it analytically to arrive at the correct conclusion that the velocity does not increase (as observed in reality).

>> No.14809648

>>14807209
DARK MATTER

>> No.14809649

>>14809637
Of course I can identify it: the calculations of the equations of motion are wrong, because you're adding up vectors instead of solving the differential equations. Please read the wikipedia article I linked before.

>> No.14809652

>>14809644
You have to make it zero before you falsify my paper and that is not reasonable zombie.

>> No.14809661

>>14809649
Total made up nonsensical fantasy bullshit doesn’t count zombie.

My paper falsifies n2 no matter how many stupid childish insults you come up with.

Now fuck off or be reasonable.

>> No.14809664

>>14809652
There's no lower bound higher than 0 and for whatever positive value you might think of, there's always a value closer than 0. The limits provide the answer for it and it's 0.

>> No.14809667

>>14809661
You are the only one insulting others here though

>> No.14809670

>>14809664
You cannot use zero for dt, so the magnitude of v must increase if n2 is right.

Wishful thinking is unscientific.

>> No.14809671

>>14809661
What part of it is made up? That's just how vector analysis works. It's all a consequence of the notion of derivative. What's more, once you carry out the calculations, the resulting equations of motion correctly describe a uniform circular motion at a constant speed.

>> No.14809674

>>14809670
Except we're integrating so we're taking the limit as dt -> 0 which is completely fine.

>> No.14809675

>>14809667
I am responding to insult wiht insult.

Which is reasonable.

Stop insulting me with this ad hominem evasion and perhaps I won’t feel obliged to call you a fickjnh ignorant zombie.

>> No.14809676

John, I made a thread for you >>14809632
Now stop shitting up this thread, which has nothing to do with what you're babbling about.

>> No.14809677

>>14809675
But nobody has insulted you in a while in this thread. You are the only one hurling insults. Quite rude of you.

>> No.14809682

>>14809675
>fickjnh
Stop speaking Afrikaans, John.

>> No.14809683

>>14809674
Except the limit tending to zero does not mean that you can assume no acceleration because the value is never zero.

Your claim is delusional.

Sleight of hand maths.

N2 is false. Objectively.

>> No.14809685

>>14809676
Fuck you zombie. Stop shitting up this discussion just because you are afraid of the truth.

>> No.14809689

>>14809682
I’ll speak whatever I like you ad hominem evasion stinking cunt.

>> No.14809690

>>14809685
I'm just politely asking you to move from my thread to that other thread, John.

>> No.14809695

>>14809690
And I am politely refusing and personally insulted by your arrogant fucking ignorance.

>> No.14809702

>>14809695
Then I will have to notify the moderators of this site and you will get banned once again.

>> No.14809705

>>14809683
Read up on limits, John. We can see what happens at zero even when you can't substitute zero into the equation.

>> No.14809715

>>14809705
I am well aware that you imagine you can just neglect the acceleration. It is objectively stupid though.
Face facts and stop being so dense.

>> No.14809721

>>14809715
It's not neglecting the acceleration. Each component of the velocity does change. It's only the magnitude that doesn't change.

>> No.14809729

>>14809721
It is exactly neglecting the acceleration.

The limit as delta t tends to zero for linear motion of an object at rest with a force applied is zero, so by your logic we can assume that an object at rest remains at rest when a force is applied.

Zombie.

>> No.14809742

>>14809729
If you write out the full equation you can see that this is not true as dt is in both the numerator as in the denominator. so they cancel out and the value isn't 0 at the limit. The acceleration is not zero during circular motion. Nobody said it is. But you can have non-zero acceleration with constant speed because velocity is a vector.

>> No.14809749

>>14809729
Reminder to you, worthless tranny faggot.

That school physics education doesn't automatically makes you righter than this guy.

>> No.14809818

>>14809749
Yes, but my ability to face facts against his idiotic denial and ignorant stupidity does. Zombie.

>> No.14809823

>>14809742
Fuck off you zombie. You can’t change the rules for each example.

If you can minimize acceleration to zero then I can too.

Now stop fucking around with zombie maths and face the fact that b2 has a big fucking glaring fucking problem.

>> No.14809829

>>14809823
I'm not. Open a book on calculus and start learning about limits.

>> No.14809847

Explain this, Johnny boy
https://youtu.be/M6PuutIm5h4

>> No.14809856

>>14809847
>no answer
Johnny boy completely BTFO

>> No.14809863

>>14807209
>Took picture
>Look at picture
>Picture is of what you took using camera
Mystery solved

>> No.14809864

>>14809829
The limit as dt tends to zero for a freely moving object in open space at rest with a force applied of the distance moved is zero.

So we can just claim it does not move.

Either that, or N2 is falsified by circular motion.

Stop being a zombie and face the fact.

>> No.14809865

>>14809847
Easy. It spins faster because angular energy is conserved. Zombie.

>> No.14809867

>>14809856
The day you show 12000 rpm using a ball on a string is the day you can make claims like that delusional zombie.

>> No.14809945

>>14809864
You claim you studied calculus but you don't even know what a limit is

>> No.14810008

>>14809945
I know very well what a limit is and you need to stop this ad hominem you piece of stinking shit.

You admit you are the loser

>> No.14810017

>>14810008
Clearly not. You don't seem to know the definition of a derivative or an integral.

>> No.14810098

>>14810017
Address my paper or fuck off you insulting stinking cunt.

>> No.14810105

>>14810098
Have you been up all night? You sound ragged.

>> No.14810113

>>14810105
Are you mentally challenged?

Address my paper and stop trolling you piece of shit.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

>> No.14810154

>>14810113
Grab a nap before you fall down. I'm worried about you.

>> No.14810158

>>14810154
Stop trolling and face the simple obvious fact that Newton’s second law is wrong.
Creepy zombie

>> No.14810166
File: 1.58 MB, 380x672, 1657568308121.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14810166

>>14810098
>>14810105
>>14810113
>>14810154
>>14810158
All of you are worthless talentless maggots faggots kys

>> No.14810173

>>14810158
Then what is the physical significance of the time derivative of momentum?

>> No.14810175

>>14810166
Stop trolling you fuckjng stupid zombie. What the fuck is wrong with people here this is /sci/ go somewhere else if you like trolling. Here we are supposed to discuss science.

Insulting zombie.

>> No.14810186

>>14810175
You've barelly finished school or are an undergrad, kys maggot faggot

>> No.14810189

>>14810173
Well if we have a freely moving object in open space at rest and we apply a force then the distance it moves tends to the limit of zero as delta t tends to zero. So we can assume that it is zero and the object remains stationery according you zombies.

Go and fuck yourself with this ad hominem bullshit asshole.

Address my paper and stop this red herring bulllshit or fuck off.

>> No.14810191

>>14810186
FUCK YOU AND YOUR AD HOMINEM YOU STINKING CUNTED WHORE.

>> No.14810193
File: 289 KB, 483x531, weirdo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14810193

>>14810175
>Here we are supposed to discuss science.

>> No.14810196

>>14810193
Yes. That is what I am trying to discuss but all you fucking zombies are more interested in slandering me instead because you are afraid to face the truth.

>> No.14810202
File: 1.42 MB, 1104x891, cray.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14810202

>>14810196
Maggot faggot kys

>> No.14810208

>>14810202
Shitting yourself from the truth and trying to blame me for your fuck up.

>> No.14810238

>>14810189
Oh, so you don't understand how derivatives work. Crack an intro to calculus textbook sometime.

>> No.14810284

The spokes are not ripples, the star is a white hole

>> No.14810683

This fucking thread.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I hate all of you fags.

>> No.14810721

>>14810683
Keep evading the evidence and making personal attacks zombie

>> No.14810733

>>14810721
Anon... It's time to stop.

I'm not even him.

>> No.14810740

>>14810284
That's an interesting proposition, but why and how would white holes emit matter in the form of two cones?

>> No.14810750

>>14810733
Or maybe you should stop trolling and address my article or FUCK OFF

>> No.14810785

>>14810189
>the distance it moves tends to the limit of zero as delta t tends to zero
That's not actually true. Can you show your formulas and calculations?

>> No.14810792

>>14810683
>>14810721
>>14810733
>>14810740
>>14810750
>>14810785
All of you are talentless maggots and faggot gtfo this thread

>> No.14810804

>>14810792
Are you okay? Maybe you should lie down for a little, anon.

>> No.14810843

>>14810792
How about all of you schizo faggots get out of my thread so we can discuss this peculiar nebula, which is why I created the thread.

>> No.14811037

>>14807898
OK, I have a buddy in the EE department doing his thesis on robotics who has access to a really good vacuum chamber. He might be interested in wasting a few hours of time to save a lost soul.

He's proposing a spinning metal bar of about 6 inches (will be precisely measured once made) and an adjustable mass that starts at the end and is brought as close to the center as its dimensions permit. The chamber's got thick, metal walls so a camera on the inside will record.

Do you accept:
1. The moment of inertia will entail a center of mass calculation as the rod's mass cannot be neglected for any RPM. It may also not be a perfect 90% contraction, but predicted change calculations (the theoretical prediction to be tested) in angular velocity will be made off of the actual obtainable values for the CoM's location at full extension and maximum contraction.
2. The experimental RPM may still fall a tiny bit short (<1%) of the theoretical prediction because of mechanical friction, what little air resistance remains, and measurement uncertainty. Your "disproof" relies on the absurdity of the ball spinning as fast as a ferrari engine. Here, the difference will be so small that it will not be discernible by the naked eye.

Moreover, what do you demand to verify? Do you want videos of the device's assembly? Tapes of weighing the principal components? Motor specs? Control logic? Anything objections you wish to raise with the experimental design, or that another anon puts forwards and which you agree with, this is your chance to submit them.