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?

If there's no lab experiment, how do you know it's not spinning faster enough?

There are good reasons why it's not spinning faster enough, but they probably have to do with fluids being pumped farthest away from the rotation axis, and thus making a higher-than-expected-by-geometry moment of inertia. Friction further complicates things.

 
\[
I\omega = \textrm{constant}
\]

 
\[
I_{\textrm{expected}}<I_{\textrm{real}}
\]

 
\[
I \sim mr^2
\]

Discrepancies are expected, rather than revealing the theory being wrong.

 
\[
 \omega_{\textrm{real}} < \omega_{\textrm{expected}}
\]

Edited October 13, 20205 yr by joigus

23 minutes ago, Mandlbaur said:

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?

!

Moderator Note

The experiments exist. There are youtube demonstrations of this.

You already had a lengthy thread where you made your unsubstantiated claims and ignored feedback, and you were told not to re-introduce the topic.