Jump to content

Mandlbaur

Senior Members
  • Posts

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mandlbaur

  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Please explain what "p" refers to in the equation? Google Logical proof: Logical proof is proof that is derived explicitly from its premises without exception. Logical proof is not the same as factual proof. In formal logic, a valid argument is an argument that is structured in such a way that if all it's premises are true, then it's conclusion then must also be true.
  10. Clearly I need to explain again: since the radius is reduced, the circumference is reduced which means that the object will complete more revolutions in the same time period even if it does not speed up. You read the previous thread incorrectly. Absolute nonsense.
  11. If my abstract is flawed (which I disagree with), then it needs to be re-written. That makes no argument against my proof. Premise 3 states that there can be no component of centripetal force perpendicular to it. You are talking nonsense. You have not defeated premise 3. Which premise do you believe that you have you defeated?
  12. I repeat: In order to dismiss my conclusion, one would have to invalidate my premisses or fault my logic. The only other option is to accept my conclusion. Any other response is nonsense.
  13. What you are doing is called ad-hominem. Allow me to bring your attention back to the fact that my paper as presented is a logical proof. In order to dismiss the conclusion drawn one would have to invalidate my premises or fault my logic. Providing alternative theories does not do it. Accusing me of having a lack of understanding and calling me names doesn't do it. Accusing me of being the aggressor in this discussion is simply incorrect. I am defending my position from your aggression. It is yourselves who are being combative. This is a result of your cognitive dissonance due to your inability to accept or defeat my work. It is unfortunate, but it is also true. If there was any way for me to present this without triggering confirmation bias, believe me, I would try that. The reality is that you are all making fools of yourselves and I am sorry that it has to be this way. Veritas omnia vincit
  14. Please point out any mistake in that line? The reality is that there are actually none. I admitted a mistake (The "fixed") because it was easier to do that (and slightly restrict the application of my paper) to defeat yet another invalid argument levelled against my work than to try to explain that the example provided in the detractors argument actually uses a different equation and then go down a whole other avenue. Just saying I should have used "fixed" solved the problem even if it slightly restricted the application of my paper. In reality the "fixed" is not necessary and it is not actually a mistake. My paper is perfectly valid whether the "fixed" is there or not. But you have claimed that my abstract is "full of mistakes" mentioned "numerous times". Frankly this claim is complete nonsense. You will not be able to back it up. You should be moderated out of this discussion for making invalid claims which you are not prepared to support.
  15. Every argument you guys have presented, I have defeated. In my view this is the point at which you should begin to take me seriously. However you have have claimed more than once to have defeated me on multiple occasions. This can only be the result of a confirmation bias. Since you are exhibiting confirmation bias behaviour, it is impossible for me to get you to choose to take my work seriously. In fact you will choose the opposite in order to support your position despite the facts of the matter. You are making unsupported claims and backing them up with invalid argument and then denying to yourself that your arguments have been shown invalid. This is the classical biased behaviour that I have faced continually over the past year. The fact is that you have never even tried to create an apparatus to test this world view of yours yet you will adamantly claim that my various apparatus were somehow flawed. How do you suggest I tackle this? I am prepared to put up a scientific wager that an apparatus which you design (I'll even cover the costs of it) will prove my work to be correct.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.