Mandlbaur

The ice skater and the ball on a string and the professor on a turntable all "spin faster" when the radius is reduced, but if you measure them, they do not "spin faster" enough. Not a little discrepancy that can be explained by blurting friction. We are talking about a discrepancy so large that it is a contradiction. Why is there no lab experiment verifying any of these demonstrations directly? How can we call it science if we have no experiment?

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

From Wikipedia: In physics, angular momentum (rarely, moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational analog of linear momentum. It is an important quantity in physics because it is a conserved quantity – the angular momentum of a system remains constant unless acted on by an external torque. The definition of angular momentum for a point particle is a pseudovector r×p,... I am of the opinion that your moderation of this thread is biased. What you should be doing is picking out Mordred for posting off topic, accusing me of saying things I have not, posting nonsense and refusing to respond to the OP as requested. Instead you are asking me to define something that my OP has proven to be non-existent and making an ultimatum of it in order to have an excuse to censor. I feel that your actions are despicable.

I have omitted irrelevant text. Providing alternative theory does not say anything about my work. I am well aware that there are alternative theories. Please address my OP. Do not put words in my mouth. I identified that the example you gave does not apply to this discussion. I state that angular momentum and momentum are both accepted to be conserved. Once again putting words in my mouth. If a value is conserved, it will always be conserved. It is not going to choose a system within which to be conserved. The equation which I have specified contains a linear momentum vector - are you denying this ? l=rxp is the classical definition. The parallels were drawn after that. The mistaken assumption of angular momentum being conserved actually comes from those parallels being drawn.

You may have said that, but what you are saying does not make any sense. The p in that equation is the linear momentum vector. The angular momentum is represented by L. A spinning wheel falls outside the scope of this discussion because we would use a different equation for it: L = I x W.

The OP mentions a variable p. That variable is a linear momentum vector.

Allow me to draw your attention to your own words: "Consider a rotating sphere with non zero radius." So which would you like me to consider? A zero radius or a non- zero radius? Also, since this is your example, surely it is yourself who is required to define radius. You are talking complete nonsense. Please apply some reason to what you are saying.

If the radius is zero then the angular momentum is also zero by definition. If the radius is zero, the moment of inertia is zero. Therefore the angular momentum is also zero.

If r = zero, angular momentum = zero.

Incorrect. No-one has dismissed my argument adequately. To make that unsubstantiated claim that is irrational, negligent, wishful thinking and typical of a person suffering from confirmation bias. Although it is absolutely not necessary for me to respond to your out of scope questions, I will nevertheless provide responses: 1) Engineers do not use conservation of angular momentum when designing machines. If they did, their machines would not work properly. I have had this discussion on various occasions with engineers and none have been able to provide any evidence of anything which varies in radius that was designed using conservation of angular momentum. They use conservation of energy which predicts substantially different results. 2) Astronomers do fail to predict the movements in which they are using conservation of angular momentum in their calculations and the radius is variable. I have had this discussion with various astronomers and they have failed to produce any data which confirms actual measurements of planetary movement against predictions. There are also various examples of planetary motion discrepancies. Now let's go back to the reality of the argument provided in the OP: Logic is the cornerstone of science. I have provided a logical argument. To dismiss it one would have to invalidate the premisses or fault the logic. There has been no argument levelled against this logic which has not been directly tackled and dismissed. The only thing outstanding is for all of you to accept the conclusion drawn. Absolutely agreed.

This post is not the same as my previous posts. None of your arguments presented here are valid against this OP. I have presented a logical argument. To dismiss this argument, it is necessary to invalidate the premisses or fault the logic. Alternatively it is mandatory to accept the conclusion drawn. Any other response is irrational.

It is a classic symptom of confirmation bias to accuse your opponent of your own uncooperative behaviour.

Your questions are irrelevant because they fall outside the scope of my OP.

Can we move on to the next line?

Please continue