John Mandlbaur

85K posts

John Mandlbaur

John Mandlbaur

@Mandlbaur

Inventor & Founder, Baur Research.

Randburg, South Africa شامل ہوئے Ocak 2011
2.9K فالونگ405 فالوورز
پن کیا گیا ٹویٹ
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
3.6K
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@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
2
0
1
31
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
2K
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
3.6K
GeneModifiedCat
GeneModifiedCat@GeneModifiedCat·
@Mandlbaur @Ferrari_ball @alexboge The conclusion of the paper is unproven. We've covered this. You insist, wrongly, that you have proven something, but all you have is a weak hypothesis that you claim is FACT but take no responsibility for verifying with measurements. You're not a scientist. Paper rejected.
English
1
0
3
19
GeneModifiedCat
GeneModifiedCat@GeneModifiedCat·
@Ferrari_ball @Mandlbaur @alexboge "The conclusion of the paper" really cracks me up. The self-congratulatory language of the "paper" is also very funny. I don't know how many trips through the shredder it will take for him to block me, but it shouldn't be long now.
English
1
0
3
16
Lord Pinky
Lord Pinky@HiddenPinky·
@Mandlbaur @haprho No. I'm sorry for you, but not sorry enough that I want to continue this conversation.
English
2
0
1
25
Hap Rho
Hap Rho@haprho·
Aww, poor flerfs — they think sunsets are caused by ... perspective
Hap Rho tweet media
English
17
0
27
963
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge My measurements are under example 1. Don't tell me that I need to measure to know that 345 rpm is not anywhere near the speed exhibited by prof Young. Why dont you repeat the experiment an publish results? Afraid reality doesnt agrees wiht your beliefs?
English
1
0
0
49
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge The example you sent is number 4 on that page, and you haven't measured the time differences. Stick and stones. You haven't presented any measurements, so go for it.
English
1
0
3
24
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@HiddenPinky @haprho The reason I am failing to communicate is that I am being censored and slandered. I assure you that it is not enjoyable.
English
0
0
0
11
Lord Pinky
Lord Pinky@HiddenPinky·
@Mandlbaur @haprho No, I'm just pointing out that you are failing to communicate. You seem to take that as a victory. So enjoy that.
English
2
0
0
23
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Rather than yelling "that's wrong" provide your w1 and w2 measurements from the video. Use 0.25x speed, Stats For Dummies, and take the delta of the frame counter, e.g. for the ball at the same position on the screen on two consecutive rotations. f=1/t.
English
1
0
1
16
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge If you think that you can get away with claiming it 345 rpm, then you are suffering mental deficiency. Any vague look at the video shows objectively much more than 345 rpm. It is a plain and simple lie.
English
1
0
0
19
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge I did it fairly quickly, but I'm pretty good with this stuff. The simple fact that you're relying on someone else to do this (and then saying they've done it wrong) highlights your own lack of measurements and data. No offence obviously. You're still not doing it though.
English
1
0
2
14
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Every experiment has torque. The textbook is clearly presenting this as a mathematical example and not an experimental prediction. Would you expect every ball and string with a small object with any mass "m" and any w/r/t to behave the same way? That's what you're suggesting.
English
1
0
1
7
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@HiddenPinky @haprho Holding up the ignorance in my face and proclaiming not effective against ignorance, is it? As if the facts will change if everyone just ignores them enough, is insane behaviour. No offence intended.
English
1
0
0
13
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge Your "measurement" is biased lies. You have to measure the fastest revolution. You must be nuts to claim that it only spins less than 3 times faster. This is delusional speculations. No offence intended. 1200 rpm minus friction explains the results if you measure honestly.
English
2
0
0
19
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge It confirms that the demonstration isn't conserving all of its angular momentum. It gets to around 5.8rps which is 345rpm. A far cry from 1200rpm. The constant loss of angular momentum plus energy being added slowly is all you need to explain this. What happens at the end?
English
1
0
1
16
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@GeneModifiedCat @Ferrari_ball @alexboge The conclusion of the paper is what is being escaped. Angular momentum is not conserved. A historic watershed moment. We are about to step into a world of space navigation competence. But scientists are terrified of change and behave insane in denial.
English
1
0
0
18
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@DeeWaynee94 Scientists refuse to test conservation of angular energy as a method of predicting a ball on a string because it is accurate. Here is someone who confirms it by mistake: The first result counts and him trying to pull harder after is not evidence. youtube.com/clip/Ugkxa_s90…
English
0
0
0
32
Dee 🌹
Dee 🌹@DeeWaynee94·
“conservation of angular energy” isn’t even the standard law. You’re muddling angular momentum with energy, then acting persecuted because nobody rates the mash-up. Scientists test these things constantly. Your theory didn’t get suppressed. It just didn’t survive contact with the maths.
English
1
0
9
67
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
5
45
1.2K
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@SevernDweller @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge I refer to the reference work, example ten. I am literally presenting standard established physics. Your argument in claiming that I make a mistake by assuming standard established physics, is insane. Objectively insane. No offence intended.
John Mandlbaur tweet media
English
1
0
0
15
Severn Dweller
Severn Dweller@SevernDweller·
@Mandlbaur @Chucktown_Tiger @alexboge You started with the *assumption* that the experiment would conserve angular momentum. That's what is invalid. When the experiment did not conserve angular momentum, that showed your assumption was wrong. Making false assumptions is common enough, but you also need to reassess.
English
1
0
1
9
John Mandlbaur
John Mandlbaur@Mandlbaur·
@GeneModifiedCat @Ferrari_ball @alexboge I mean that it is not a valid argument to try and imagine that the moon behaves significantly differently in which conservation law it obeys than the ball on a string obeys, because I have had people try to escape the conclusion using that fallacious reasoning. Did that get you?
English
1
0
0
25
GeneModifiedCat
GeneModifiedCat@GeneModifiedCat·
Fine. What do you mean by adding this phrase (bold, italic) at the end of your paper? Why did you add this phrase? "Since the laws of physics are universal, that which applies to a ball on a string also applies to all other orbits." (emphasis added)
English
1
0
1
14

دریافت کریں

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