John Mandlbaur

@NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace Artemis II has a math problem. On Feb 10, watch for a 145–180 kg propellant surplus that NASA's models can't explain. I am timestamping this prediction 17 days before launch. Telemetry will confirm. (1/2)

@GeneModifiedCat @Ferrari_ball @alexboge That is just idiotic fake accusations. Are you upset that I believe the earth is a sphere? WTF is wrong with you? This is a crazy personal attack and it is stupid. No offence intended, but it feels like I am facing a childs tantrum here. Cna we discuss physics rather?

@Mandlbaur @Ferrari_ball @alexboge a) You have carefully NOT stated anything affirmative, in fact. It's the first time I've seen you use logic precisely. b) The shape of the Earth is not a theory; it is a measured fact. c) I am not having a mental breakdown. d) Your mental gymnastics are amusing.

These two geniuses think I’m a flat earther and moon landing denier. On my post mocking moon landing deniers... 🙄😂

@snowflakeblock @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace It was done by AI, I told you. I taught the AI about my discovery and it helped to find things that showed I am right because everyone is immune to the actual factual plain and simple and clear empirical evidence of a ball on a string spinning faster but not fast enough.

@Mandlbaur @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace "They had a 15-20% risk of catastrophe" Can you show the math you used to calculate this percentage?

@NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace Artemis II has a math problem. On Feb 10, watch for a 145–180 kg propellant surplus that NASA's models can't explain. I am timestamping this prediction 17 days before launch. Telemetry will confirm. (1/2)

@GeneModifiedCat @Ferrari_ball @alexboge That is a very precise answer. If I support sphere theory then I believe that the earth is spherical, obviously. Are you having some kind of mental breakdown?

@Mandlbaur @Ferrari_ball @alexboge That wasn't the question. And that was not an answer. Why wouldn't you answer that simple question? 😸

@snowflakeblock @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace Yes, pure luck. They had a 15-20% risk of catastrophe because of the 3% extra speed than they imagined which was 8% more energy. Any discrepancy from theory is proof that the theory is wrong. Fact. Incompetence is sometimes lucky, yes. I say that is a bad thing. Rather be compete

@Mandlbaur @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace So your conclusion is that Artemis 1 and 2 were only successful due to... luck? They must be extremely lucky as there is a lot that can go wrong! It's better to have too much fuel than not enough, right John? Why do you think surplus fuel is a bad thing?

@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge What statement can I make when w2/w1=r1/r2? Because that is how nature operates. Yes, the action goes too fast to measure accurately because of the frame rate, correct. But it can still be derived from the video frame by frame analysis, I believe. Why don't you repeat it better?

@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge When w2/w1<(r1/r2)^2 the only statement you can make is that the experiment did not conserve angular momentum. It's a 30fps YouTube video, so anything above 10-15rps would show as strobing. That's ~4rps.

@GeneModifiedCat @Ferrari_ball @alexboge I have never said anything which suggests that I am not a supporter of sphere earth theory.

@Mandlbaur @Ferrari_ball @alexboge @Ferrari_ball hey, look! There's special proof but it's secret. I think I know why @Mandlbaur wouldn't answer when I asked him the shape of the Earth. 😸

@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge 200 rps. is the prediction adn 20 rps is the ideal of my theory . He was not as smooth as he could have been so perhaps a little less than 20 rps. Of course 12000 rpm is absurd. So you concede my reduction then?

@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge I don't think 1200rpm is achievable. That's 20rps, which would still be dangerous in a classroom and require some force to achieve. I'd say he goes from 2rps to around 4? 120rpm to 240 perhaps? It's not a big speed increase.

@snowflakeblock @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace I have many more important idiocy because of stupid misunderstanding and stubborn stupidity to worry about than a fuel surplus on one mission. Are you mental or something? The re-entry char. Pure luck that there was not a disaster, which I warned about but nobody is listening.

@Mandlbaur @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace So you don't even need confirmation - you just knew it was right before the mission happened and didn't bother to check after the mission concluded?

@GeneModifiedCat @alexboge @Ferrari_ball I present a theoretical physics paper precisely so that I don't have to "measure it". You do. The paper proves COAM false, and cannot be faulted. You refusing to concede is insanity, not a scientific win.

@Mandlbaur @alexboge @Ferrari_ball You didn't measure it, did you? No, you didn't. And my mistake, I thought you had a SECOND paper, that link was just the first paper again. The incorrect paper that doesn't PROVE anything. When did you MEASURE the rpm?

@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Correct, and it reliably and predictably is observed to spin faster consistently when it is properly conducted, and that is what we are trying to predict. The reliable, repeatable outcome. An easy demo, about my theory. My theory predicts 1200 rpm and that is accurate.

@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge The classroom demo is performed slowly over a long pull to allow students to observe it. It's not an experiment (no w/r measurements are made). As an experiment, a smaller ratio is easier to achieve. You wouldn't use a paper ball to measure gravity, would you? It's an easy demo.

@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Slow and steady is precisely what we are attempting to predict. The result is observably predictable. I predict 1200 rpm and that is accurate when the teacher pulls carefully, slow and steady. Demonstration is experiment. Are you mental or something?

@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge It's very obvious. You've never shown a measurement for 10:1, only the demo. If the experiment DID conserve angular momentum, it would spin at 12000rpm, so wouldn't be able to be used. You can see how carefully the teacher pulls the string. Slow and steady. Demo, not experiment.

@GeneModifiedCat @alexboge @Ferrari_ball 12000 rpm contradicts our observations.

@Mandlbaur @alexboge @Ferrari_ball The Conclusion section does NO SUCH THING. Let's start here: "The existing paradigm makes predictions which contradict reality." Where did you provide evidence for this claim? It's not in the paper. If you think it is, specifically cite it. BIG RED CIRCLE.

@GeneModifiedCat @Ferrari_ball @alexboge My private professional business funded sophisticated research and development work is not under discussion here. I am using the established ball on a string demonstration which is well known to "spin faster because of conservation of angular momentum", to show that it does not.

@Ferrari_ball @Mandlbaur @alexboge He hasn't shown any of the results of his claim that "I was designing and testing many professional sophisticated experimental prototypes for months" I was hoping for some novel apparatus, but he seems to measure things by the feels and "Nuh uh!".

@snowflakeblock @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace I know there was a surplus, because AI determined that there would be a surplus based upon application of my theory of conservation of angular energy, and the prediction made for Artemis 1, prior to investigating the residuals of the mission, was accurate. The paper is accurate.

@Mandlbaur @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace I didn't ask about your prelaunch prediction. I asked why you believe there was a surplus. That would involve evidence from after the mission took place, not before.

@GeneModifiedCat @alexboge @Ferrari_ball I am stating that the conclusion section directly deduces logically, step by quarter of a logic step, that the 12000 rpm prediction of theory, leads directly to the conclusion that angular momentum is not conserved. You have failed to identify an error which can be ringed. Liar.

@Mandlbaur @alexboge @Ferrari_ball I'm stating the FACT that you did not, in that paper, support your statement "12000 rpm is wrong". You yourself ADMITTED this; you presented a link to ANOTHER of your "papers" and said you explain it there. This second paper is not referenced in the first paper. FAIL.

@snowflakeblock @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace Anyone who disagrees with me after failing to fault my maths or find a loophole in the logic of the conclusion section, is absolutely a liar. They are lying firstly to themselves. About Artemis II, AI helped me to make this prediction, based upon Artemis 1 zenodo.org/records/183097…

@Mandlbaur @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace It seems you jump to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. Not very scientific. Why do you think Artemis 2 had a fuel surplus, John? How much surplus fuel? (stick to the facts, no talking about people please)

@packers_owner_j @SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge The reasoning is that 12000 rpm is ten times what we observe in the objectively repeatable demonstration. So the theory has made a useless prediction, so it is, by definition, wrong. But you would have to identify the loophole in the logic in the conclusion section before talking

@Mandlbaur @SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge But your reasoning for why 12000 rpm is wrong is that real life demonstrations don't show that speed Which DO have these factors that your ideal case does not

@snowflakeblock @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace Because Dave is a lying piece of trash who cannot face the fact that my maths is right. That is his behaviour for ten years, so why would it change now?

@Mandlbaur @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace What makes you think Dave lied?

@snowflakeblock @alexboge You have a mental problem with this attacking me. What is your problem? It is not my fault that physics is wrong so stop punishing me for it.

@Mandlbaur @alexboge Are you admitting you started your post with something you knew was a lie to "prod" him? My 2nd reply to you. You still haven't answered. Please answer honestly. Thanks.

@SevernDweller @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge I did not throw anything extreme at it. I present the prediction for the typical example of pulling it in to 1/10th to show the ten times faster spin rate. LabRat showed that the result is 2. And did so with minimal effort. Just like the pull to 1/10th takes minimal effort.

@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge 12000rpm is absurd. You can't throw extreme numbers at an equation and expect a bad experiment to conform. lab rat showed how hard it was to explore the limits at 2:1. At 10:1 it's 25 times more energy in a short time. So don't be ridiculous and say you've proven anything.