John Mandlbaur

85K posts

John Mandlbaur

John Mandlbaur

@Mandlbaur

Inventor & Founder, Baur Research.

Randburg, South Africa เข้าร่วม Ocak 2011
2.9K กำลังติดตาม403 ผู้ติดตาม
ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@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)
English
2
0
2
3.5K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@snowflakeblock @alexboge Nope, you are targeting me and harassing me, which is very different from "calling out a false statement". Which explains your ideas about "calling out false statements" about the most irrelevant twisted nonsense. Which is you conducting an ad hominem campaign. Because you scared
English
0
0
0
0
SnowflakeBlock
SnowflakeBlock@snowflakeblock·
@Mandlbaur @alexboge It was simply calling out a false statement. I asked you to clarify if it was a mistake or an intentional lie. Would you kindly answer? Leave feelings and ad hominem out of it. Thanks.
English
1
0
0
3
Alex Boge
Alex Boge@alexboge·
These two geniuses think I’m a flat earther and moon landing denier. On my post mocking moon landing deniers... 🙄😂
Alex Boge tweet media
English
12
2
71
1.8K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@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)
English
2
0
2
3.5K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@SevernDweller @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Correct, but the assumption of a 5 m drop is your absurdity. 5m/s is approximately what happens in reality and you have to show evidence otherwise because it is obvious. There is nothing absurd about the 5m/s prediction. If it was predicted to do 12000m/s, then that is absurd.
English
1
0
0
4
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@McClureShawn Incorrect. No offence Science is what scientists do, and modern scientists evade testing and spend their time safeguarding against the reasonable truth by presumption that the physics is well known, and they welcome and trust the most unreasonable "evidence" ever devised. Fact.
English
0
0
0
0
Shawn "All Outta Bubblegum" McClure
Shawn "All Outta Bubblegum" McClure@McClureShawn·
Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. Science seeks knowledge by doubting, testing, and safeguarding against unreasonable assumptions while religion presumes knowledge by welcoming, accepting, and trusting some of the most unreasonable assumptions ever devised.
English
30
8
106
1.8K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@michaelshermer This is why scientists cannot understand that 12000 rpm, which is objectively a wrong prediction for a typical hand held ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum, objectively falsifies conservation of angular momentum.
English
0
0
0
0
Michael Shermer
Michael Shermer@michaelshermer·
Leo Tolstoy: "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him."
Michael Shermer tweet media
English
20
37
169
7.2K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@SevernDweller @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Firstly nobody ever dropped a paper ball five meters to demonstrate gravity, so your argument is itself absurd. Secondly, even if you did drop a well scrunched paper ball 5m, it would approximate the 10m/s expectation. 12000 rpm is ten times faster than reality which is wrong.
English
1
0
0
5
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Of course it is. Science says there's a force acting on it, but it doesn't accelerate to 5m/s in 1s as the law dictates. Unless you provide peer reviewed evidence of a paper ball accelerating to 5m/s in 1s, you are wrong. 12000rpm anyone? You're just blowing smoke now.
English
1
0
0
7
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge What? You get to make an absurd claim and other people have to disprove it? I dropped a paper ball, and unless you can show peer reviewed evidence of a paper ball doing 5m/s after 1s then gravitation acceleration and Newton's Second Laws are disproven. What's the difference?
English
1
0
0
10
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge And you're always going to say that evidence is "manipulated" when it shows you are wrong. That's why we have the scientific method. So that an individual doesn't say "I think this is right" without evidence or support. Provide evidence and get it confirmed. You are wrong.
English
1
0
0
9
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@SevernDweller @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Yes, you do. I asked you to review my proof so you can’t make up any “evidence” which suits you. You have to address my paper using peer reviewed data, or concede you cannot fault my maths and support publication. Otherwise you are doing a cover up which is unscientific.
English
0
0
0
6
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge We don't need anything peer reviewed. Experiments which confirm something aren't publishable, unless they present something new. You've got some weird ideas about science. How many peer reviewed papers confirm acceleration due to gravity? Now.. How many experiments confirm it?
English
1
0
0
6
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @packers_owner_j @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge No, I provided a video experiment which confirmed it to within 0.4% And Mars measurement data. You're just denying any actual data in favour of your "my textbook physics" and paper, neither of which provides any. You ignore lab rat's conclusion too. So you don't want evidence.
English
1
0
0
8
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@DeeWaynee94 Scientists refuse to question conservation of angular momentum which is why it remains completely weak and useless.
English
0
0
0
3
Dee 🌹
Dee 🌹@DeeWaynee94·
Scientists question evolution all the time. That’s why the theory got stronger, not weaker. “Darwinism” is just the creationist pet name for a field they can’t beat on the evidence. If modern biology rested on pride, new evidence would kill it. That’s literally how science works.
Wendell@wendelltalks

Scientists cannot question Darwinism. Challenge it publicly and you’ll be chastised and ostracized by your peers. Why the fierce protection? It’s baked into biology, psychology, anthropology, medicine, and countless other fields. Overturn it and large swaths of modern science gets discarded overnight, devastating to the community and collapsing public trust in institutions. In fact, I suspect if there was smoking gun evidence that Darwinism is false, many would still cling to it as a matter of pride. This isn’t science. It’s dogma.

English
9
4
32
696
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@DrNeilStone Conservation of angular momentum is pseudoscience. It is supported by things that “spin faster” for a different reason.
English
0
0
0
2
Neil Stone
Neil Stone@DrNeilStone·
Science is sometimes wrong Pseudoscience is always wrong I'll take my chances with science
English
57
92
652
7.3K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@Askwhyisit Yup. That’s why people fight to the death to defend conservation of angular momentum even though it is trivially falsified.
English
0
0
0
1
Harry Margulies
Harry Margulies@Askwhyisit·
People don’t believe what’s true. They believe what they were taught early, and defend it as if they chose it.
English
10
3
12
215
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@biblemythology Science cannot be updated because scientists personally attack anyone who points out a flaw in it, so the errors it contains will always be there. Physics is unreliable.
English
0
0
0
10
Archaeologian
Archaeologian@biblemythology·
The Bible cannot be updated, so the errors it contains will always be there. Meanwhile, science, archaeology, and history have made huge advances, which has widened the gap between the Bible and reality. The Bible will not change, it will always be unreliable.
English
99
23
139
4.6K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@haprho Poor scientific community thinks that conservation of angular momentum is caused by things spinning faster.
English
0
0
0
28
Hap Rho
Hap Rho@haprho·
Aww, poor flerfs — they think sunsets are caused by ... perspective
Hap Rho tweet media
English
7
0
12
276
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@usablejam @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Nope. You made a delusional claim which contradicts the scientific method. If a theory makes predictions that are wrong then the theory is wrong, no matter who you imagine is responsible for it.
English
1
0
0
11

ค้นพบ

@snowflakeblock @alexboge @dimebagdaveh @NASA @NASAArtemis @JimFree @SciGuySpace @SevernDweller