It is referenced, existing physics.
The conclusion contradicts existing physics, but that does not change the fact that everything in the paper is accepted existing physics.
A scientist cannot reject a paper because they do not like the conclusion because that is directly illogical. It is formal logic fallacy.
You have to point out a mistake which can be directly identified within the paper, or accept that the conclusion is proven even if you do not accept the conclusion and you hate it.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
I can reject a paper because you're a schizo
in fact I just did
No, you cannot reasonably do that.
good morning sir
this
It makes no difference how many people stand behind a stupid excuse, it is still a stupid excuse.
Based
Not based. Moronic. Neglecting the evidence is the behavior of a #flatearther.
>What has been overlooked is the simple fact that as we reduce the radius, the circumference is also reduced which means that the ball has less distance to travel in a single revolution and therefore does it more quickly.
hmm you make sense though.
Post video evidence where you spin yourself into orbit by breaking conservation of angular momentum.
Arggumentum ad stupidum is unreasonable behavior
Don't care, experimental proof is better than a thousand equations.
Well sir, then you have to accept that my measurements of prof Lewin falsifies COAM, sir, I believe that you are in denial and will not accept any evidence which disagrees with you, sir. The fact is that you have no experimental evidence supporting your beliefs, sir.
See
This post will go unaddressed.
This is totally nonsense. To address my paper you have to point out an equation number and explain an error within it which stands up to rebuttal, or accept the conclusion.
>To address my paper you have to point out an equation number and explain an error within it
You mean exactly what both of those posts do? The first guy addresses the conceptual flaw in equations 10 to 19 and the second one gives explicit equation numbers. As the first guy pointed out, you have provided no rebuttal or argument other than calling things absurd without evidence to support your claims.
Claiming a conceptual error in a range of equations is making up lies. This is maths you have to point out a single equation and explain the error within that equation or accept the conclusion.
Alright then, you = wrong. Sorry, it's math. You can't claim it's a conceptual error or you're lying.
Absolutely. Maths is proof and you have to fault the maths not make false accusations of a conceptual error. Ther is no such thing as a conceptual error in maths. Not in a range of equations. A single equation contains an error okay. Claiming a range of equations is an error is a lie. End of story.
Either falsify my maths or accept the conclusion. Not lies
You're not doing math, you're doing physics. The math is fine, the physics is wrong. You cannot mash a bunch of equations together without any regard for their physical meaning and claim to have come to a physically meaningful conclusion.
I can evaluate the existing physics prediction using equations and example referenced from my book, sir.
>I can evaluate the existing physics prediction
Not without quantitative data you can't. Going back to >
, the algebra from [10] to [19] is fine, but you've erroneously made the assumption that the energy increase comes from nothing. This is an entirely conceptual error, because you're mathematically treating a system in a way in which it does not actually behave based on a faulty assumption. That anon demonstrated where the additional energy comes from.
Again, mathematical physics paper. Either fault the maths by pointing out a single equation and explaining the error within it. Vague hand waving and whining is not scientific
Mathematical physics is not mathematics.
>Vague hand waving and whining is not scientific
Exactly, so let's see your data.
Mathematical physics is not mathematics because physicists are too emotionally immature to prevent themselves from telling tall tales.
Mathematical physics is not mathematics because mathematics is not an empirical science.
This is pedantic semantic uncommunicative childish nonsense, sir.
Right and maths is not maths. Wtf
There is such a thing as conceptual error in Science and physics.
Let me give you the most basic example because you seem to be willfully ignorant about it.
Imagine you drop a sheet of paper & a billard ball down a 100 m high tower.
How much time will it take to reach the bottom?
Well, it's simple Newtonian physics; y = y_i + v_i * t + a/2 * t^2 so for a=-9.8, x_i = 100 and v_i = 100 and y=0, we have t=3.19 s.
Both will reach the bottom at the same time after about 3.2 s. The math can't lie! There are no errors in my equations! I challenge you to debunk me!
The reason that you are presenting an “ example is because you cannot actually point out an error in my paper. You are literally being straight out dishonest. Sir.
The error was already pointed out. You refuse to acknowledge it, because you prefer lying to yourself rather than face reality.
You pretend there can be no such things as conceptual errors in mathematics. That is true. But you are not doing math; you are doing Physics. Reality does not care about your maths; it just exists. You know your equation is wrong because the answer does not matchup to reality.
This will go unaddressed.
This is unreasonable nonsense. Which equation number does it address?
This is further lying and more proof you are an npc
No, sir, you are simply ignoring the evidence like a flat earther,sir.
>This is unreasonable nonsense.
Let's start an appeal to the stone counter for this dude.
You seem to have misread that, mathematical PHYSICS* is not math because math is not empirical while PHYSICS is.
Mathematical physics papers are not anti-empirical you are just making up nonsense to avoid facing the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.
>Mathematical physics papers are not anti-empirical
Correct, they are beholden to empirical data (of which you have provided none). If your theory or prediction does not line up with reality, it is false.
If you agree that the result does not line up with reality then you agree with my conclusion, sir.
>If you agree that the result does not line up with reality
The only way you can make this assessment is, again, with quantitative data.
You claimed it does not line up with reality. When it suits you you don’t need quantification but when it is against you you have another standard. Hypocrite
I claimed that if "mathematical physics" in general does not line up with reality then it is false. The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute, and in the case of physics, proof is data.
No, sir, you are overlooking the fact that this is a reductio ad absurdum and so makes its proof by showing that the prediction is stupidly wrong, sir, so if it does not match reality then then the conclusion is proven, sir. Since you acknowledge that the result does not match reality, you agree with the conclusion, sir. Thank you for your support, sir
OMG I can't believe you just assumed my gender, it's MAAM sir, MAAM.
No, sir, sir makes no gender assumption, sir, it is merely a term of respect, sir. Please stop using slander and ad hominem to evade the argument, sir?
>so if it does not match reality then then the conclusion is proven
You cannot make a statement about reality without measuring it. You cannot claim reality is "absurd" without measuring it. You cannot do science without data.
I am not claiming that reality is absurd, sir, I am claiming that 12000 rpm, which is the existing physics prediction, is stupidly obviously and objectively wrong, sir.
>which is the existing physics prediction
no. it's not. let me show you what you are doing.
E=1/2mv^2 so lets say you have something going one mile per hour , but then goes 1000mph
Ef/Ei=10^6 look! if you just change the velocity you get energy from nowhere! physics is broken!
Of course it is the existing physics prediction, sir. I have taken the equations from physics for the classic example from physics and evaluated them and the result is 12000 rpm, sir. That is wrong, so the theory is wrong. Not difficult, sir.
Reductio ad Absurdum involves the validity of a modus tollens argument in classical logic.
But classical logic is obviously fatally flawed.
For example, this is a valid use of the material conditional in classical logic:
1) If John is in Paris then he is in France and if John is in London then he is in England.
2)Hence it is the case that either, if John is in Paris he is in England, or if John is in London he is in France.
(Proof by contraposition).
If angular momentum is conservation is true, then every experiment will show angular momentum is conserved.
One experiment shows angular momentum is not conserved.
Nothing follows from this because both premises have an indeterminate truth value (truth table of T F and I, see Priest, van Fraasen, and other logicians)
Looks like you made a typo and forgot the "n't" after your "is"
So why did you ignore friction in your calculations?
Because my equations are referenced and existing physics ignores friction, sir, so I have to. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to “calculate friction “ for a generic hypothetical example,sir, because we do not have sufficient information to, sir, so you are unreasonable, sir.
If your argument is that my proof is wrong because logic is flawed, sir, then you are simply stonewalling, sir, stop it. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, sir
There is no error pointed out. There is you making up lies about a vague error that you are unable to point out. You are not reasonable.
Says the guy unable to look back for a second and remind himself that this
and
exists because he is so full of himself and autistic
You can remind me over and over again how much evasion there exists of my paper. But you still have to face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.
That's what they did
Yes, that is correct, they made up lies.
My paper does not contain any error so they are making up lies literally and claiming a range of equations are wrong that is illogical.
>My paper does not contain any error so they are making up lies literally and claiming a range of equations are wrong that is illogical.
You can't reject the refutation just because you believe you didn't make an error. That's illogical.
Unless , of course the refuting does not point out any discernible error within my paper, sir, then I reject it as the lies it is, sir
Correct, sir, their false claim of an error which cannot be directly identified is “low quality bait”, sir. Thank you for your support, sir
so true!!
http://www.baur-research.com/contact.html
[email protected]
>whois baur-research.com
Dude's been at this for like six years.
There. Is not time limit on standing up for the truth. The fact that people lose their minds and start blabbering nonsense uncontrollably for years is not my fault
You should stick to reddit and twitter, someone on IQfy is going to decide to push you over the edge for the lulz.
I grew up in Hillbrow and my father owned a string of brothels, so these “bad” people are my kind of people. They are going to help me get the message through if anything.
Delusional. At least you left out the grandeur.
How's it feel to be a shih tzu?
No, sir, there is no delusion, sir, it was a tough job, but someone had to do qualify control, sir.
If that's true then I don't see how anything posted here will do anything for this guy. Just post a link to the original thread and each fricking time he does it again we can just prove he started this 6 years ago and is still going strong
Where it started is irrelevant. The fact is that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.
You are lost. But some new poor sod might take you seriously, thus it will help counter that.
No, sir I have never been lost. I have been defeated by censorship and provocation in battles, but the truth will win the war.
I don't know if he's visited IQfy much before, but there's a couple long ass threads on scienceforums.net and his twitter is basically 20k posts solely about this. twitter.com/Mandlbaur/status/797850413047410688
Please stop the ad hominem and face the simple fact. That 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.
This is simply absurd and rambly. You are not making sense, take your med schizo
This is the IQfy channel right? Not the /idiots/ channel right ??
What is your line 1 describing? An object in constant rotation only has equal tangential velocities, i.e. v1 = v2 for v=r*omega
Equation 1 is the premiss of the reductio ad absurdum which is essentially the “law” of conservation of angular momentum.
It cannot be reasonably attacked because that is agreeing with the conclusion, sir
Having issues downloading this.
Can you screenshot or pastebin some of it?
Try this one on ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356786155_A_flaw_in_the_law_of_conservation_of_angular_momentum
Look, let's suppose you're right. Every equation which utilizes conservation of angular momentum is incorrect.
But by some miracle propellers, wheels, engine cranks, transmissions, neutron stars, and every other physical system is engineered or explained using this flawed assumption but somehow continues to work.
If that's the case, why worry?
I'm not worried about the theoretical existence of Newton's Dome showing that Newtonian physics is indeterministic. I'm not worried because Newtonian physics is just an approximation and I'm not a scientific realist. I'd happily use Newtonian physics to give my 4th of July fireworks the right trajectory.
Please see rebuttal number 16 for the answer to your appeal to tradition logical fallacy evasion, sir: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals
You are appealing to the fallacy of invoking informal fallacies.
Please stop presenting argumentumadstupidum, sir?
Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies COAM, sir.
>Grandiose: People with this type of delusional disorder have an overinflated sense of self-worth, power, knowledge or identity. They may believe they have a great talent or have made an important discovery.
Flat earthers neglect the evidence and refuse to acknowledge simple facts placed in front of them, such as the simple fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM, sir. Please wake up out of your stupor, sir and face the fact that 12000 rpm directly and undeniably falsifies COAM, sir?
The second law of thermodynamics never made sense intuitively to me as a kid, but I couldn't articulate that it was because the law is really a statistical one. Now we have time crystals
Same with angular momentum it never made intuitive sense.
>1+1=2
>this means ONE dollar + ONE Canadian dollar = TWO million dollars
>I have discovered how to make infinite money
>to prove me wrong, you have to prove 1+1 doesn't equal 2
You're an idiot.
Wat? That's obviously false, because if 1 = 1 then they can't be different things, such as a USD and a Canada Dollar which are not the same
Your premise is right but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise
No. I'm right. To prove I'm wrong you have to point out to an error in the equation 1+1=2. Otherwise, you have to accept that I found a way to make infinite money.
I'm intrigued.
Now how would we call this type of error? I wonder...
Maybe a conceptual error?
No, it can't be, I thought those don't exists...
He is an impersonator,sir
So you're neglecting the fact that conservation of energy applies to the sum of kinetic and potential energy. When the radius is larger, PE is higher, and when the string shortens, PE is converted to KE hence the higher linear velocity. In total, it takes more energy to set up the system with a higher radius, just less of that energy is actually converted to KE.
No, sir, I am calculating the increase in energy and showing that existing theory predicts a million percent increase which is obviously wrong, sir, so the theory is wrong, sir.
>I am calculating the increase in energy
where are you accounting for the energy it took to reel in the ball?
Equation 19, sir.
When you invoke conservation of energy, you have to take into consideration your entire system. If you released the string in a vacuum with no gravitational force, the radius of rotation would not contract, but since gravity is in effect, when we release the string, the PE we put into the ball when we lifted it up is converted to KE.
In short, when invoking COE, you should use KE + PE.
This is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy, sir. Please address my argument instead of evading it, sir. I have calculated the existing prediction which includes the energy you refer to, sir. The result of that is 12000 rpm, which is wrong, so the theory is wrong, sir. Face facts, please, sir?
>http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf
what is your thesis, op? sum it up. It seems you are saying "if I change the moment of a rotating object, it will have more energy!" the answer is, of course it will, because as you shorten the length of the rope the ball is connected to, you are doing work, and putting energy into the system.
No, sir, I am saying that since the prediction does not match reality, the theory is wrong.
>No, sir, I am saying that since the prediction does not match reality, the theory is wrong.
show me where you accounted for the work done on the ball/string while reeling in the rope.
Equation 19, sir.
do this,op. Take a ball and tie it to a rope. Spin yourself and the rope around, then try to pull the rope towards you. It will require energy to do so. You have not invented perpetual motion or an over unity engine. You are just neglecting certain forms of work that are being done on the system.
No, sir, I am calculating the work that existing theory predicts is done and a million percent increase in energy is wrong, so the theory is wrong.
Physics is fantasy novel, just when you're not capable of doing anything else you choose to write and read fantasy novels until you retire and hereby after. There is no room in physics for a brain, you need to invent new field that isn't posioned by little grandmas.
angular momentum is SO fricking simple, how did it filter you?
It is very simple, sir. 12000 rpm falsifies COAM, sir.
13000rpm also falsifies it?
Yes, sir, the predictions of theory are objectively wrong, so the theory is wrong, sir. That is the essence of the scientific method, sir. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop being in #denial, sir.
Do you sell merch? 12000rpm tshirts and mugs?
No, sir, I am trying to save the world from stupidity and this has cost me at least two thirds of my personal fortune so far sir.
I was following you up to this
>make merch
>sell for fat wads of cash
>get free marketing for you ideas
>earn back your loses
You can't NOT do this bro.
No, sir, you have never been following me, sir, you are mocking me in evasion of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM
Why is it so hard to believe you have supporters?
Because I do not have any support, sir. Support involves actual verbal support and defending me from the attack, sir and not just vague mocking claims of support, sir.
Anytime that has happened though, the peer pressure attack team that is coordinated by the Reddit group of scientists and moderators goes into action and applies severe peer pressure and intimidation to re-convert the person back to the false beliefs again.
what is this? op trying to be the next time cube moron?
No, sir, the op is trying to get the simple fact that 12000 rpm falsified COAM through to all the morons, sir.
>engaging the schizo and not milking the lolcow for lulz
This board truly is redshit lite. Sigh.
Why would you comment if the facts do not disturb you, sir?
Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and stop being evasive and insulting the author, sir. Grow up.
Yes you're right. Keep fighting the good fight brother.
Thank you for the support. Can you perhaps offer some thoughts as to how to get through to the agro deniers?
good morning sir, you got me interested. I just read your proof and couldn't find a _single_ mathematical error in it.
All of your formulas and calculations are correct!
I can't believe I have been lied to so much.
Can you please tell me more on the subject? I am very intrigued.
Thank you. Finally some intelligent life.
Everything I have on the relatively simple matter is on my web page here, sir: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics
You might get some of the grumpy people here to take you more seriously if you attach Pepe the frog memes to your posts. It signals you're one of us! 🙂
the Drooling Pepe, pls
I glanced a bit at your work, but what I am more interested in, is the next step. What are the consequences of the invalidation of angular momentum exactly? What does it invalidate next? Just how big are the impacts of your discovery?
Well the importance is far reaching, sir, but I can offer my prepared rebuttal number 11 which explains the importance, sir : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals
I am intrigued by the moon crash you mentioned in this rebuttal.
I would love to see you make a correction to the traditional orbit path accounting for you discovery that would prevent this sort of crash and present it as a paper. This would be one step further in getting your work recognized by more people!
I am not a physicist, sir. I have proven my claim and it is for the physicists to sort out the rest.
But don't you wish to go farther, to explore this new venue of science? Will you really stop at this?
To be honest, I am quite disappointed in you. I thought you were a determined person seeking the truth. I have seen in this thread references to your post going back 5 years ago, I would have thought you would have continued exploring your new theory in the meantime...
Again, sir, I am not a scientist. I have simply proven my discovery because that is my obligation and that is as far as I wish to go. If that disappoints you, tough. I don’t care, sir.
You don't need to be a scientist. Stop putting arbitrary barriers between you and your passion!
You can do it! Just 5 years ago, you typed up this proof! Believe in yourself!
There is nothing stopping you from pursuing your research! The great mathematicians of old didn't need any fancy degrees or title to do math, science or astronomy, they just reflected, used logic and worked out the math, like you did!
From what I have read from this thread, people are not persuaded because this proof lacks concrete application. Als far as we know, all of the flywheels, gyroscopes and stabilizers still work with our incorrect understanding of physics, so how can they be wrong?
This is where YOU enter! You talked about a crash on the moon; if you can demonstrate how a proper understanding of angular momentum would prevent that, and demonstrate an orbital correction, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone objecting near as much to your proof, since you have given observable, useful facts!
Please stop evading the fact that COAM is falsified by trying to shift the burden of proof back upon me, sir. The reason people are not persuaded is because they are literally insane in #denial.
Why are you becoming aggressive with me? I have done nothing but respect your work and encourage you do pursue your passion, since it's obviously your passion, if it wasn't you wouldn't have spent at least 5 years spreading it.
I feel hurt by this reply.
I am not aggressive, sir, please stop the ad hominem?
You are accusing me of evasion and totally misinterpreting what I am saying, reacting defensively.
Sir, I think you need to show more respect to your fellow scientists. Please, sir. Some decorum.
Like a real scientist you should use your predictions to make an experiment right?
No, because that would falsify your shit maths.
I am not sufficiently arrogant or ignorant or stupid to be a scientist, sir.
I think you're sufficiently stupid to be anything you want to be
Yes, sir, you do, but that is simply because you are in #denial of my discovery and personally attacking me because you can’t defeat my paper, sir. If you were worthy of your degree, you would have long measured a ball on a string and confirmed that it conserves angular energy instead of this evasive insulting tirade, sir.
I can produce as much experimental evidence as I like and it is neglected like my absolute proof in my papers is neglected, sir.
This is an imposter.
No, it is not. And you are so childish and insane about the fact that you cannot defeat me that you have to impersonate me. Since when is impersonation part of the scientific method, sir?
Sir, please stop impersonating me. I have not rebuked the scientists here as harshly as you pretend to, sir. My paper proves, incontrovertibly that COAM is false. Please show some respect, sir.
What are you trying to achieve here moron?
Please do not insult me, sir. You do nothing to help your case for COAM.
Also google orbital prediction error to find out that there are literally thousands of physics papers showing that our orbital mechanics is incompetent, sir. So your appeal to past success logical fallacy is even itself falsified by the facts, sir.
>intelligent life
clearly you need to also retake a high school english class to learn proper definitions
No, sir, you need to address my paper instead of making up fake insults, sir.
Can I just say I appreciate the level of respect Baur is giving the physicists by addressing them as sir? I admit it's a bit misogynistic, since they could be madams instead, alas the sentiment is a good one. It's sad to see these so called experts unable to show even a modicum of respect to this brave man who is going against the consensus. Science isn't advanced by consensus. It is advanced by new ideas.
Incorrect, sir. There is no misogyny, sir. Sir is a term of respect and does is not restricted by gender, sir.
Is all of this because you couldn't get a perpetual motion machine going?
No, sir, this is because angular momentum is not conserved, sir.
sirs, please kindly to reading my new scientific theory. I found energy is invalid theory.
E=1/2mv^2
A 1kg ball is rolling at 1mph
Ei=1/2
then the ball eventually comes to a halt as it slows down
E=0
the energy has disappeared sirs! where has the energy gone? I have disproved all physics!
He did it guys!
Where is your paper kind sir!
Argumentum ad stupidum is bad science.
pleasing to be excusing me sirs, but can you show where I made a maths errors?
>Experimental prototypes for an invention I was working on disagreed with my predictions so I
dusted off my thirty year old, first year university, physics text book and re-investigated my
formulae.
Shame this isn't elaborated on. Would've been fun to know what he was trying to build and what he was predicting it to do
This is not about fun nor about my confidential professional research and development.
This is about the fact that angular momentum is not conserved.
Don’t you think that three hundred years of physics being overturned is interesting enough, sir?
I have built an energy amplification device, sir.
Good for you. I told you to email me the details and I will look at it
I am afraid to email you, good sir. I fear I may dox myself.
Well then message me privately using another r method then. Sir
Requesting OP to perform experiment.
Sir, the math should speak for itself. Doing an experiment would be useless since they won't be persuaded by it because they are #insane. If you can't show a math error in my paper, sir, then it is right.
I'm sorry but upon exhaustive review it appears you are using linear time. You see there are 4 days in a linear 24 hour earth day, because time is cubic. It's like the sides of a pyramid. I am the wisest mind!
You are an idiot presenting #argumentumadstupidum
This is an impersonator
Sir, it is highly frustrating that you always lie and pretend that I am an impersonator. Stop your ad-hominem and acknowledge the simple fact that 12 000 RPM falsifies COAM.
Sir I do not understand why you are doing this. I have proven COAM incorrect. Provide evidence it is correct or go away. I will alert your bad behavior to the CIA.
Sir, how many times do I have to repeat myself, please stop impersonating me.
>COAM
I have proven kinetic energy to be wrong. Address that kindly, sir.
No, sir, not until you address my proof that COAM is false.
#doublestandards is bad science.
Sir, I recommend using a "tripcode" to defeat imposters.
test
smee
No
OP is getting a aroused by his clones being called sir.
I do not understand the need to impersonate me just because my argument cannot be defeated. It is not reasonable and does not provide any benefits. What the frick is it about ???
My penis acheives 12000rpm inside your mother.
Conclusion
>The existing paradigm makes predictions which contradict reality.
how
>Clearly there is a mistake somewhere.
where
>Since reality is the truth which physics is attempting to model, the mistake must lie in the physics.
okay
>The physical assumptions made for the ball on a string demonstration are sensible and have been generally agreed upon by scientists for centuries so the problem must reside within the
mathematics.
uuuh ok
>This paper contains no mathematical errors therefore the source of the error must be contained within the referenced equations.
which paper
>The only mathematical assumption that has been made in formulating these equations is the
assumption that angular momentum is conserved.
how
>Because there is no scientifically verified empirical evidence confirming that angular momentum is conserved in a variable radii system, it remains an hypothesis and we can correctly refer to this as assumption.
>The assumption must be false.
why assumption must be false
Since the laws of physics are universal, that which applies to a ball on a string also applies to all other orbits.
inductive method? prove it.
>The law of conservation of angular momentum is fallacy.
no experiment = no proof = no conclusion
Do you imagine that a ball on a string does do 12000 rpm in reality?
Or a extended one from 1m does achieve a million percent increase in energy?
Rebuttal 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals
bro how fricking delusional are you
i see you on reddit, twitter, /b/, IQfy, just shut the frick up and learn physics and frick off
I am only as delusional as the next guy, sir.
No, I refuse to learn physics, it is the make of satan, sir.
Impersonator again.
Ii have only to teach what I have discovered, sir. You being in denial and personally insulting me is unscientific behavior, sir.
i swear this dude literally has brain damage
In one of these multiple threads, he did infer that much about his diagnosis.
Even so, it never came as a surprise to anybody.
This is plain personal insult. Sir. That is uncommunicative and ad hominem, sir. Show us 12000 rpm, or accept that COAM if false, sir.
Car accident when he was 8, apparently.
Now this is peak IQfy (autism)
Stop personally insulting me in evasion of the fact that you cannot defeat my paper, sir. Accept the truth that is proven, sir. Wtf??
>as we reduce the radius, the circumference is also reduced which means that the ball has less distance to travel in a single revolution and therefore does it more quickly.
It does more turns per the same unit of time because the kinetic energy for the rotation remains, yes. How does "modern science" explain this differently? Your '12000 rpm ball an string' thing is a joke.
No, sir, no joke. That is the prediction of the “law” of conservation of angular momentum, sir. It is objectively wrong, sir.
op are you a virgin
No, sir, I used to do quality control in a brothel sir. Please fact the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM and sto desperately grasping at straws, sir.
I ask because my dick only went 12 rpm in your mom. This violates your falsification of COAM, because after my 12 rpm fricking I COAM'd in your mom.
What do you want, exactly