Mandlbaur

No, this is just an example provided to support my original logical argument and to refute the inaccurate claim that there has never been a violation observed.

We can observe this experiment or very similar performed many times by many different people including many professors on youtube and in lecture halls so it can hardly be described as hypothetical. These professors have as yet failed to take measurements which means that the theory has been established due to an oversight. Since the predicted result is so absurdly high and obviously inaccurate, measurements are superfluous. A reasonable person must surely conclude purely from observation that 12000rpm is incorrect by an order of magnitude.

I strongly disagree with that. Take the example of a professor performing the ball on a string demonstration. If his initial angular velocity is two revolutions per second and he reduces the radius to one tenth, which is very close to what is often performed. Currently accepted physics says that the angular velocity must increase 100 fold. 200 revolutions per second is 12000 rpm. We have never observed anything close to this. We have observed plenty of violations - we have merely failed to recognise them as such.

What evidence do we have that nature is that way?

Prior to the definition of angular momentum, surely you would agree that radius and momentum could not reasonably have been described as related or interdependent. Does the act of defining angular momentum as the cross product of these variables change their status?

Timo is a scientist and a senior member and he has agreed that my first statement is true once we add the real number proviso without having to specify a constraint on b. I believe him. He has also stated that the angular momentum will scale with the radial vector which implies that it is not constrained. I agree with you that the angular speed will change because angular velocity is equal to velocity divided by radius.

I apologise. If we include the proviso that the numbers are real numbers and that the angular momentum is not zero, then you agree that we can make both claims. How is it possible then for angular momentum to be conserved when we change the radius ?

If we define a variable a = b * c. Where b and c are independent, unrelated variables and b is not zero. Can we then say with confidence that if we change c, a will change ? If so, then why is it not acceptable to say that since angular momentum is defined as radius cross product momentum and momentum and radius are independent, unrelated variables that as long as the momentum is not zero, if we change the magnitude of the radius, the magnitude of the angular momentum will change ?