@GeneModifiedCat @Mandlbaur @alexboge And our students show how the 12000 rpm can be reached. Repeatedly, reliable.
English
Zero Elevation
711 posts
@Mandlbaur @Ferrari_ball @alexboge I provided three (3) peer reviewed experiments. They disprove your hypothesis.
You claimed they were manipulated, now you say they are frauds, but you did NOT prove that claim when given an opportunity.
Your hypothesis: disproven
Your status: all claims retracted
English
@GeneModifiedCat @Mandlbaur @alexboge I see, only experiments which "can be repeated in minutes" count, as poor as possible. BTW our turntable experiments with measured moment of inertia nicely confirm CoAM and are done within a minute or two.
English
@Mandlbaur @Ferrari_ball @alexboge Unsupported statements:
"Nonsense"
"Non-repeatable"
You can say anything you want, it doesn't make it true.
These are repeatable, sensible experiments, with measurements, exactly what you said didn't exist.
Support your claims immediately, or you are by default retracting.
English
@GeneModifiedCat @alexboge Our hero @Mandlbaur had drawn his typical conclusions. Because wobble can absorb the rotational energy within seconds the moon must fall to earth within seconds. Forces and masses play no role in M's wonderland. Meanwhile he changed the timescale from minutes to days and weeks.
English
@alexboge @Ferrari_ball It turns out, a guy wrote a whole physics paper describing why Mandlbaur is wrong!
And M just can't let go of his falsified hypothesis.
Turns out, that's Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type (DSM-5 297.1).
Pretty amusing.
English
@SevernDweller @Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge In the end measurements, not words decide whether there is torque or not. The video analysis showed 7% loss of angular momentum per revolution in Dr. Young's demonstration. This means that there WAS torque.
English
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge And he doesn't say it's an example of COAM.
You can throw insults all you want. I am immune to your games. We are meant to be discussing physics, not making comments on each other as individuals.
English
@alexboge @Mandlbaur @GeneModifiedCat 12000 rpm is the prediction for the ideal case, but for unrealistic conditions like 1/10 radius reduction. With a stable setup and reduced friction 12000 rpm can be reached, angular momentum can be conserved down to 1/5 of the radius repeatedly.
English
@SevernDweller @Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge It is funny that @Mandlbaur presents an experiment where torque has been quantitatively determined by @WrenAnScott .
English
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge How do you repeat an experiment when you don't know r1, w1, m and the materials of the string and tube?
Do it the same way and you'll get the same result. 345rpm.
A paper "measurements of a ball and string experiment" isn't exactly novel, is it?
English
@GeneModifiedCat @Mandlbaur @alexboge He is certainly not a flat earther, just a flat thinker. For more info have a look here:
bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo…
English
@Ferrari_ball @Mandlbaur @alexboge Seriously, what is his problem, Zero?
"I don't believe the math" is just him being incredulous. I'm guessing he's a flat earther but just doesn't want to say it.
Apparently SOMETHING is wrong with orbits, but everything is orbiting just fine, so...
English
@GeneModifiedCat @Mandlbaur @alexboge There is certainly less friction acting on the moon compared to a handheld ball on a string rotating with 30-40 rps at 20 cm string length. But in @Mandlbaur 's parallel universe friction is always negligible because the physics primers don't mention it.
English
@Mandlbaur @Ferrari_ball @alexboge What conclusion are these people trying to escape, exactly? Spell it out.
English
@GeneModifiedCat @Mandlbaur @alexboge It was great fun when we reached the 12000 rpm the first time with our stable setup. Of course the kitchen toys John suggests can't reach it. I don't know what else he means by "every time".
English
@Mandlbaur @alexboge @Ferrari_ball I will repeat myself.
Just this once.
"12000 rpm is wrong"
- You
No logic. No supporting evidence. No measurements. Nothing but your assertion.
Pretend there's a big red circle around that, if it makes you happy.
English
@GeneModifiedCat @Mandlbaur @alexboge We tested it with our stable setup, a ball bearing, a 10 g lead ball and a Kevlar strings. In contrast to Mandlbaur's poor version we reached the 12000 rpm and confirmed CoAM over 80% of the radius reduction. It is great fun for our students.
English
@Mandlbaur @alexboge "12000 rpm is objectively wrong"
- You
Your paper provides NO basis for this conclusion except non-existent injuries caused by you projecting a hypothetical scenario from a textbook to an actual real classroom.
I am open to an explanation, from you, for the direct quote above.
English
@SevernDweller @Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge John uses math he never understood and tries to apply to cases where its premises are not given. Then he demands to use kitchen equipment to violate the premises even more. And he calls people morons? What a master of projection.
English
@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Your maths is blagged from an 80s textbook. Well done. Congratulations on being able to copy it and use the wrong units. That shows incredible understanding.
English
@SevernDweller @Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge @Mandlbaur used simple marble tracks and expected them to produce "free" energy because he thought you get the promised energy increase without work against centrifugal force. This is hilarious for many reasons. Directional forces in tracks can't do work and there is torque.
English
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge If momentum is conserved, then pulling the string results in an outward spiral. Is that what happens? You not understanding vectors just makes these statements ludicrous.
English
@Skippy_Bush_Roo @Mandlbaur @vadabac340 @Danish_SMF The textbook is right if you reduce friction by using a stable axis and a ball bearing instead of a handheld tube. And whoosh - you easily reach the 12000 rpm with even slower pulls than @Mandlbaur with his lousy version.
English
@Mandlbaur @vadabac340 @Danish_SMF The textbook is right for the simplified content being taught, but wrong if you expect it to be reproducible experimentally.
Is this literally the only physics problem you've seen? The 'spherical cow in a vacuum' line exists for a reason - textbooks often isolate concepts.
English
Calling my understanding of science and trust in its process as 'blind faith' doesn't make your faith less blind.
It just projects your method onto mine.
English
@bo_ptah @rawcastdigital @FTFEofficial Using a syringe and flash paper nicely demonstrates how thrust in vacuum works.
youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwk…
YouTube
English
@rawcastdigital @FTFEofficial You don't need a degree in rocketry to understand the NASA thrust equation. But you don't have the mental bandwidth to understand that.
English
Flat earthers all claim they are super smart and me and all other globers are dumb
Here's a challenge to any flat earther.
We both put £5k in escrow, then take a A level physics exam at the same time.
Whoever scores the highest takes the money all the money.
Kirkcaldy, Scotland 🇬🇧 English
@SevernDweller @Mandlbaur @AstroSpanner @messigoat1899 @Scotty_D_J "then he would not be able to say that you absolutely evidence blind moron."
The evidence clearly shows torque, no matter what Dr. Young says.
English
@Mandlbaur @AstroSpanner @Ferrari_ball @messigoat1899 @Scotty_D_J I think he asks "how much torque am I giving it?" He makes no comment on the torque in the system itself.
You said "for centuries". Surely you can show me a classical example? Your paper mentions Newton. I thought you'd be overwhelming me, not misquoting YouTube videos.
English
Here's an experiment.
Gather all the flerfs in the world and put them on a remote island.
Just let them do their thing.
How long would it take them to discover the Earth is round?
100 years? 1000 years? Never?
Perhaps a small subsidiary would make the discovery & be bannished.
English
@SevernDweller @Mandlbaur @AstroSpanner @messigoat1899 @Scotty_D_J Dr. Young clearly says "no torque along the string", the video analysis shows a 7%/rev. loss of angular momentum, i.e. torque. The textbook clearly says "ASSUME no torque" for the sake of simplicity, not "there is no torque" in any version of the ball on the string.
English
@Mandlbaur @AstroSpanner @Ferrari_ball @messigoat1899 @Scotty_D_J The experiment has never been declared torque negligible. Ever. If you can show me those two words together in any mention of ball and string ever, I'll concede that you are correct. Otherwise, you've just made this up. Fair?
English
@atreiyuh @DavidRu31988626 @Danish_SMF @Mandlbaur John conflates a simplified math exercise in a physics primer with a poor demonstration experiment limited by friction, air drag and wobble. He calls these distortions "excuses" and "shifting the goalposts". What a genius.
English
@DavidRu31988626 @Danish_SMF @Mandlbaur Its seems crazy to me that you would try and use a scalar models with so few variables to predict a non theoretical outcome.
English
That's false.
Angular momentum conservation has been tested and confirmed countless times, ice skaters, gyroscopes, neutron stars, satellite launches.
It's one of the most quantitatively verified principles in physics.
Saying 'it is not' conserved isn't a fact,
2
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur
@Danish_SMF You trust that angular momentum is conserved when you have never seen any example which confirms quantitatively that it is conserved, because it is not. That is not me projecting anything. I am simply stating the straight forward facts about your behaviour of ignorance of fact.
English
@Danish_SMF Within the solar system angular momentum conservation is shown with 9 significant digits. Only for mercury there was a deviation from Newton shown: the tiny perihelion rotation can be explained by general relativity.
English
If angular momentum weren’t conserved, everything from planetary orbits to particle accelerators would fail.
Show me a controlled, closed-system experiment, not a reinterpretation of equations.
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur
@atreiyuh @Danish_SMF I have a mathematical physics paper disproving conservation of angular momentum using the scientific method, and I have no interest in trying to embarrass dead people. researchgate.net/publication/36…
English
@vadabac340 @Mandlbaur @Danish_SMF ,@Mandlbaur wanted to invent a perpetual motion machine using marble tracks. For several reasons his "professional prototypes" didn't work as expected. Now he blames his old physics text book for making wrong promises. Just Google his name and "bluemoonshine". John is famous.
English
@Mandlbaur @Danish_SMF I will read it. What were you developing? Does it work?
English
@Danish_SMF You are right, @Mandlbaur rides this dead horse for more than ten years. Before you waste your own precious time on this crackpot have a look at what a physics professor wrote:
bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo…
English
2
it's a falsehood.
I trust it because of evidence, not authority.
If you're going to critique science, learn what science actually says first.
Otherwise, you're not debating, you're just making things up.
English