Mandlbaur

I will not address any of your points until such time that you are prepared to back up your claim that I have ignored arguments presented against my logic. You have now made this accusation three times and this is the third time that I am asking you to point out any argument against my logic that I have failed to address. You are not entitled to make wild claims without providing evidence to back them up just as I am not entitled to do so. I view this as an ad-hominem attack.

You are correct, the moment the motion becomes linear, my theory of rotational dynamics falls apart.

As far as I am aware, I have successfully tackled and defeated every reasonable argument presented against any of my logic. Unless you can point out a relevant argument which I have failed to address, please stop making this unfounded claim? My argument is that since angular momentum is defined by the radius it will change when the radius changes. Angular momentum is effectively conserved in situations where there is no change in radius. (I am obviously referring to the magnitude of the radius)

My prediction is that the magnitude of linear momentum which is perpendicular to the radius is what we need to conserve. Shouldn't be too complicated to make a mathematical model and generate predictions. Taking measurements of a high quality demonstration is "experimental results". My "wild idea" has been proven three times over each with a different approach. Adjusting a prediction to match the results is not mentioned in any description of the scientific method that I have read. I believe it is nothing less than fraud. I can dismiss a derivation based on the fact that the measured results do not match those predicted by the derived equation (Without having to dismiss Newton's laws or waste my time trying to find the mistake). I have shown this discrepancy for both the ball on a string as well as the rotating professor which pretty much covers all the angles.

Great. We now have three alternative logical proofs predicting one result and one mathematical proof predicting a differing result. When a scientist is provided with two alternative theories predicting differing results, he should conduct an experiment to determine which of them is correct. Fortunately we have arguably the best demonstration available which we can turn into an experiment by measuring it - the one contained in Walter Levin's lecture 20. Measuring this, I have provided significant evidence which shows that the results do not match your mathematical proof. The only question remaining is: Does my theory match the measured results?

There is always a force on the string whether the radius is increasing, decreasing or the force is balanced and the radius remains constant. (I am aware that I have Omitted certain required provisos, but I am sure we are all intelligent enough to understand that these are implied and we can keep the discussion within the bounds intended). There is always work being done. If anybody has noticed, I have corrected my error and replaced tangential with perpendicular. There cannot be a perpendicular component of the force. Angular velocity can change without there being a force because it changes with the radius, yes, but the component of velocity which affects angular velocity cannot. i.e.: The component of velocity which is perpendicular to the radius cannot be affected without a perpendicular component of force. You agree with an argument that you think supports your position and then disagree when it is pointed out that it does not support your position. This clearly indicates that it is your position which stands and not the validity of the argument. A strong indication that you are subject to confirmation bias.

The force is always acting to towards the centre of rotation. There can be no perpendicular component of the applied force. Therefore there can be no affect to the component of the velocity that affects the angular velocity. You have already agreed with this. You agree with my work provided that you think it supports your argument. Can you not see how unreasonable your position is?

Conservation of angular momentum predicts that if we halve the radius, the angular speed will quadruple.

I have provided a logical deduction based on valid premises - this is the definition of proof. Therefore I have fulfilled the requirements of "burden of proof". The latest version of my proof can be seen here: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/CAMFI2e.pdf Since you have made unsupported claims against my work, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you to substantiate them. The burden of proof for your claims lies with you. I have submitted my work many times in many different versions to many different journals and have yet to face peer review - it is rejected by the editor immediately probably because it "does not agree with generally accepted principles". It is not possible for me to produce a paper showing that there is a flaw in the generally accepted principles which also agrees with the generally accepted principles. Which is why I have come here. Please point out any specific argument which I have failed to address - I sincerely believe that I have addressed all of them. I reiterate: the burden of proof for your claims lies with you. I have provided a logical proof of my claim. Proof is the highest quality of evidence that can be provided. Unless you can show my premises to be invalid or my logic to be flawed, you have to accept a conclusion drawn by this process. Please refrain from insult it is nothing more than ad-hominem. I would also like to suggest that perhaps it would be wise to consider, since you are obviously extremely emotionally charged, the possibility that your reasoning might not be quite as rigorous and reliable as is usual.

Please provide some evidence to support your claim? Please explain the purpose of this demonstration? My argument that conservation of angular momentum defies Newton's laws can be found here: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/CAMFI.pdf Please provide a reference to an experiment to which supports your claim? I have been unable to find one. An argument that since it has not been found for a long time period in history means that there isn't a problem is not very scientific. As far as I am aware, I have countered every reasonable argument levelled against my OP. Could you please point out any argument that I have failed to address? I have provided calculations which show that the ball on a string demonstration does not produce expected results and I have provided verifiable measurements which show that the hand weighted turntable professor demonstration does not produce expected results. I believe that this covers the vast majority of evidence provided to students when they are being taught about the concept of conservation of angular momentum. Surely this must be seen as effort on my part toward providing supporting evidence. If I have made any questionable claim for which I have not provided supporting evidence, please point it out and I will try to oblige.

Every careful explanation provided has been effectively countered. Sure if you randomly select a sufficiently inaccurate margin of error. However it seems to me that an error margin of +-0.2 seconds is more than sufficient to account for human reaction times and if I look at the deviations in my actual measurements, the accuracy for the longer measurement is +-0.01 and for the shorter measurement is +-0.07. That is why I described the error margin I offered as generous. The difference is significant.

I believe that there must be errors within the derivations because they defy the simple logic contained within my OP which has yet to be successfully challenged. I will grant you a generous error of +-20% on the final discrepancy. This would leave us with a discrepancy of between 10% and 50%. This can not in any way especially scientifically be described as "spot on".

The question was: "How do you feel about conservation of linear momentum and Newton's laws of physics?" Please explain how that is relevant to this discussion and how it can possibly substantiate anything? Let me give you my answer: I feel good!

Using a stopwatch, I measured the time for the full arms extended rotation between 24:35 and 24:39 from the point where the green weight aligns with his shoulder. My average of three closely matched measurements is a little under 3.6 seconds. I also measured the time for the full arms retracted rotation between 24:52 and 24:54 from the point where both weights align. The average of seven measurements is a little more than 1.7 seconds. The expected time as per the calculations is 1.2 seconds so there is a difference of at least 30% and it indicates a significant reduction in angular momentum. I will get back to you once I have figured out the maths without conserving angular momentum. I refuse to answer your question because it is irrelevant to the discussion and I believe it is nothing more than an attempt to find some reason to discredit me. I will say this though: in the equation L=r x p, when we change the magnitude of r it is not possible to conserve both L and p. (assuming of course that p is not zero and not parallel to r). My money is on linear momentum being conserved (in terms of it's magnitude).

Please see Walter Lewin's Lecture, the demonstration takes place at around 24:00 his angular velocity increases but not as much as his calculation claims.

If your claim was correct that they are dependent, we would see something close to 12000rpm in those demonstrations. That's what the professors have taught. The demonstrations I have provided show very similar results to the one provided by DR. M Young in the previous video which he claims indicates that angular momentum is conserved. There is indeed some change in angular velocity but since angular velocity is equal to velocity divided by radius, we would expect this in any event even if angular momentum is not conserved. So the change in angular velocity is not the evidence that the professors claim it is. This applies also to the turntable professor with weights in his hands demonstration.

Prior to the definition of angular momentum, there was no reason to conceive of a dependence between momentum and radius because the concept upon which this supposed relationship is based did not exist. There was no obvious reason to assume a relationship and there was obvious reason, given the clear differences between the two variables, to assume none. Momentum and radius were therefore unrelated and independent at the time of the creation of the definition of angular momentum which means that my premise is true. This example is well known to be the classic demonstration of conservation of angular momentum and we are all aware that it has been performed for centuries and that it is still being performed which is supported by the number of videos which use it as the basis for teaching the concept: P.Anderson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcudPr73LU Khan Academy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbeCE1HoGfA Prof M.Anderson https://youtu.be/nkVYXHnOPKUH Also, just because it is difficult to find an example of the demonstration being performed, does not mean there aren't any. There is one here for example at 28:04: Dr M.Young https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJyI7IFamK0 My personal videos on the subject, some of which contain examples of me performing it can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBX7PVP9_KHnsmHubr8siOg So your claim of a lack of evidence is actually false.

That has been discussed and shown to be correct.

Really? Which premise is that?

My argument is the logical argument presented initially in this post. So it does not. You will not find a single measured experiment with a variable radii. My argument has nothing to do with youtube videos, it is the logical argument presented initially in this post.

I have to admit that they seem to be far more difficult to find than they were a year ago when I initially began discussing this problem, but that does not detract from my argument. If you truly wish to see this demonstration in action, it can very easily be performed with some household items and a little imagination.

I could point you to my personal youtube videos but I fear that it might give you cause to censor this post as has been the case in other forums. I believe that the logical argument provided initially in this post is perfectly valid and further evidence is therefore unnecessary.

Do you deny that this is and has been a common demonstration performed by professors for about three hundred years? Do you assert that we might actually achieve 12000rpm when performing this demonstration? The point of my last post was not to pass the buck, but to point out that there is no properly conducted controlled experiment supplied when teaching conservation of angular momentum. There is only the demonstrations. So science education does use an uncontrolled "experiment" in order to convince. Therefore in Argent's words: The science education is not proper.

Please provide a link to any properly conducted, controlled experiment used during the teaching of conservation of angular momentum showing a radius reduction which results in the claimed increase in magnitude of momentum?

Since this experiment is the classical experiment used for centuries to convince students of the existence of conservation of angular momentum, it cannot be easily dismissed. Your claim that this demonstration of conservation of angular momentum is flawed merely supports my assertion that we have been misled which is exactly the point I am making with this example. We are not talking about a small difference here, we are talking about an order of magnitude so it can hardly be described as an "anomaly". In any event, I reiterate that this is purely an example provided to support my argument and it is not the basis of my argument and therefore my claim cannot be dismissed.