Mandlbaur

Answer my previous question to you. This will indicate once again that your "pointing out" is been flawed. There is nothing you have "pointed out" that I have not defeated. Unfortunately I can't defeat a confirmation bias. Any system to which the formula I have specified in my paper can be realistically applied is proven by my paper to not conserve angular momentum when the radius changes. I am not trying to prove to anybody how clever I am. I am completely dumb in your shadow. Sometimes a dumb person does have a point. This is one of those occasions. My point is actually that I should not be required to have to prove or disprove anything about any other theory prior to my work being considered. I don't understand the rest of your post. Are you seriously claiming that I don't understand my own premisses? Surely I would not have been able to create them if I didn't understand them?

I have already asked you whether it is necessary for me to prove every other derivation wrong before you will consider my work. This was a non-confrontational way of trying to point out to you that it is not necessary. Seriously, others have even pointed out that your torque argument does not hold water. How does a person tackle an argument that someone refuses to give up on even when it has been defeated on multiple occasions other than by confrontation? I have a knowledge of the topic because of my work which included the design, manufacture and testing of many experimental prototypes. Each one an optimised version of the previous model. All of them attempts to achieve extremely high magnitudes of angular velocity predicted by conservation of angular momentum. All of them indicating that angular momentum is not conserved in variable radii systems. I have spent much time trying to understand why and have discovered the truth and pinpointed the problem. I have written three different proofs of this. This paper being the latest iteration of my second proof. Clearly this is extremely difficult for people to accept. I understand that it is akin to physical pain for a person to have to change their world view. I'm sorry about that. Unfortunately because I am the one who has stumbled on this, I am tasked with getting it known and therefore have no option but to continue to push this heavy stone up this endless hill until somebody listens.

The fact that I concede a mistake in my paper about referring to a fixed central point as opposed to a central point does not mean that I concede anything regarding the point that I am trying to get across. I do not believe that I have been confrontational at all - that implication is a false. My paper still stands, it still has not faced any argument which faults any of its premisses nor flaws any logic which is required in order to dismiss it. I have faced every challenge posed and I believe that so far have defeated all of the important ones. My aim is not confrontation, I am simply trying to get my point across.

Thank you for pointing out a flaw in my work, I should have referred to a fixed central point. I will put that into my revision.

With this scenario that you describe, would I be correct in saying that a positive centripetal force would result in a positive contribution to the perpendicular momentum of the "radius vector later"?

Since this paper is new and had not yet been presented when we had the previous discussion, the arguments in the previous thread do not match. I believe that I have described the mechanism whereby the radius changes. However since you would like a more in depth explanation: If the centripetal force is either larger or insufficiently large enough to maintain the radius at exactly the same magnitude, then the radius will change. Since the centripetal force is acting directly along the radius, am I incorrect in believing that there can be no tangential force?

We have covered this previously, since I do not mention a torque, I am not applying a torque.

This is correct and very deep, but is it not a common known fact that a perpendicular force changes the direction but not the magnitude of the velocity?

It does not exhibit rotation around a central point therefore your argument does not pertain to my paper.

Does this example exhibit a rotation around a central point?

The conservation law specifies that there should be no torque. Since I do not mention torque, would that not suggest that there is no torque within my argument? Unless you can point out anything within my work which suggests the slightest hint of any torque being applied, your line of argument here is nonsense.

Is there any mention or suggestion of a torque being applied within my work ?

1) My work is a logical proof, not a mathematical one. 2) Is it necessary for me to disprove every other derivation ever created on an individual basis before you will consider my work? 3) The definition of logical proof is a deduction based on valid premises. One would have to find a premiss to be invalid or the logic to be flawed in order to dismiss a conclusion arrived at by this method. 4) Am I correct when I say that logic is the cornerstone of science?

Thank you for your advice and opinion about the lack of definition within my work. I was under the impression that since the first object within the title is "angular momentum equation" and since this is a 300 year old, well known equation, I had provided sufficient definition of the symbols. Am I seriously out of line here ? If I were to make the title read: In the angular momentum equation, L = radius® x momentum(p), when the magnitude of the radius changes, which one of the remaining variables is correctly conserved ? Would that be acceptable? or do I need to go as far as: In the angular momentum equation, angular momentum(L) = radius® x momentum(p), when the magnitude of the radius changes, which one of the remaining variables is correctly conserved ? Please advise? My argument is general and applies to all physical systems in which this equation might be applied. The only requirement being a rotation around a central point as stipulated.

Does providing an alternative theory as an argument prove my work wrong ? If you have to guess at it then you do not know your angular momentum equations. The equation L = r x p refers specifically to rotation of a point mass. Should you wish to refer to a rotating object, you would use L = I x w.

If the p component perpendicular to the radius is conserved, then when the radius stops changing, the magnitude of p will be the same as it was initially. i.e.: p is conserved and L therefore cannot be. L is in fact defined by the radius and therefore will change when the radius changes.

If the p component perpendicular to radius is conserved and L and p cannot both be conserved, how is it possible to conserve L? Does the specific equation I am using not clarify which of your examples applies?

Abstract: Both angular momentum and momentum are accepted to be conserved values and both of these are contained within the equation L = r x p. Assuming the implied rotation around a central point, they cannot both be conserved when the magnitude of the radius changes. The generally accepted principle is that momentum must change in order to conserve angular momentum. However it is logically proven that it is the component of momentum perpendicular to the radius which must be conserved. Introduction: Whilst working on a project which did not achieve the results predicted by physics, I stumbled upon this. Proof: For the equation L = r x p1. Assuming the implied rotation around a central point. Premise 1: There is a force at all times directed from the point mass along the radius toward the centre of rotation (centripetal force). Premise 2: A change in the magnitude of radius is conducted by altering the magnitude of this force. Premise 3: There can be no component of this force perpendicular to the radius. Premise 4: In order to affect the component of momentum perpendicular to the radius, we have to apply a parallel component of force (Newton’s first law). Deduction: A change in the magnitude of the radius cannot affect the component of momentum perpendicular to the radius. Conclusion: In the equation L = r x p, assuming the implied rotation around a central point, it is the component of momentum perpendicular to the radius which must be conserved when the magnitude of the radius changes. References: 1) D.Halliday & R.Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, second edition, extended version (John Wiley & Sons, Inc , New York, 1981) p. 181.

If the power is zero when the velocity is zero how does accelerate in the first place?

Thank you for understanding the question. If P=vF then F=P/v. So what you are saying then is that the force/thrust that the rocket provides is dependent on the velocity ? Also, the Force is infinitely large when the velocity is zero ?

The equation for work is work = force x distance. There is no way to incorporate v, m or KE into that simple equation. Are you proposing that the equation is incorrect ?

Absolutely, but how does that present any relevance to the problem I have presented? You are absolutely correct. Let's make it an EmDrive thruster which has constant thrust and efficiency and does not use any propellant.

Thank you for your response. I am not quite understanding how it applies though, maybe I haven't explained my question clearly enough: Work = force x distance. In instance 1) the work is the force x 5m. In instance 2) the work is force x 100m. The difference is 100/5=20 times more work being done in the second instance as compared to the first instance. In both instances, the engine burns for the same period (1 second) so the same energy is spent. If I am doing this calculation correctly, then it doesn't make sense when you consider the work/energy principle ? BTW - I have studied physics at university level.

Thank you very much for the information, but it doesn't really answer my question. Lets say for the purposes of illustration that the hypothetical rocket engine has a constant thrust and constant efficiency from the moment you light it up till it's expended in Mars orbit. We have 20 times more work being done in the second section of the example for the same energy expenditure as in the first section. What am I misunderstanding/miscalculating here because that does not make any sense?

If a rocket launches from earth, and lets say that it moves up 5m in the first second, then it will do work of force times distance - let's call the amount w. If we wait until it reaches a velocity of 100m/s, then we can calculate the work being done over that particular one second as 20w but the energy expenditure is the same. How is this possible ?