Has any of your work been peer-reviewed yet?
This is nonsense. At any given moment, the tension of the string will apply a force on the mass perpendicular to the motion of the mass and directly toward the offset centre of rotation.There is no torque being applied in a wrapping around the post situation. Angular energy is conserved just like it is conserved in a typical ball on a string demonstration using a small tube. Go and measure it before you post speculation.
This is argumentum ad hominem supported by false accusation.
Equation 26, which you refer to is immediately followed by equation 27 which states that theta is a right angle which means that sin(theta) is one which means we can eliminate it from the equation by substitution. Which is what I do.
It is clearly yourself who does not understand the basic mathematics.
What journals have you submitted your work to?
I use the example of a ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum for practically all of my arguments. The ball on a string demonstration has been in use by physicists for three hundred years. The claim is that an ad hoc mass tied to a random thread in the bare hands of a professor conducting the demonstration in the open air will conserve angular momentum and the friction and hand wobble and gravity will have a negligible affect on the results. This is confirmed by the fact that every demonstration we observe behaves very similarly which confirms that friction and hand wobble and gravity are in fact negligible. It is also confirmed by the fact that when we measure a ball on a string demonstration by reducing the radius conservatively (Yanking the radius in within a fraction of a revolution is not valid), then the results accurately confirm that angular energy is conserved which also directly confirms that friction and hand wobble and gravity are in fact negligible.
My video does not use a pen, or a yoyo, nor is there any wrapping around. You are inventing imaginary problems to support your position. The reason you have to do that is because your position is unsupported by any evidence.
FYI: rat avatar hasn’t posted on this board since the beginning of October.
The link you provide does not show any results. Your points are all speculation which are not backed up by any empirical evidence. The demonstration is provided as proof because there is no experimental evidence given and the “spinning faster” is easily accepted by students. Even though it is an affirming the consequent logical fallacy. There is no other proof than demonstrations and examples which spin faster. That is fact. These demonstrations are relied upon as the only proof. Torque is zero because otherwise the demonstration is useless because that is the first premiss of the damn thing. If pulling on the string is performing work as you correctly claim, then circular motion is doing work because we are pulling on the string to maintain circular motion. If no work is being done, then the ball will travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. There are no flaws in my “experiment” The problem is a basic error in the very basic laws of physics which are taught in introductory physics, therefore it is necessary to use an introductory physics book for reference. The error bars will never be sufficient to encompass more than ninety percent loss of energy. You are grasping at straws. Provide counter evidence because speculation is not science.
That is speculation for which counter evidence is required before we can even consider accepting it. Angular energy cannot be affected unless there is torque and the basic premiss for this demonstration is that there is no torque.
Succinct debunking involves real science, not speculation and nonsense.
A theoretical physics paper is a logical argument. A logical argument comes with a burden of disproof. You must show false premiss, or illogic, or you must accept the conclusion drawn whether you lie it or not. Any other behaviour is irrational. To reject a theoretical paper without review because you do not believe the conclusion is the definition of prejudice.
This is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy arguement which you yourself admit doesn’t prove anything. My papers are consistent with generally accepted physics. You make no argument against any of my work, you just make false accusations based upon prejudice.
My work has been rejected with prejudice. It has never faced peer review.
A compendium of most of the rejections can be found here:
www.baur-research.com/Physics/rejections.txt
I just read through that long list of rejections, and they seem to fall into two categories:
- Those that are capable of evaluating your work and find it wanting, and
- Those that do not accept work of that nature.
Probably because it’s batshit, John. It goes beyond the bounds of the acceptable in this forum to directly link to, say, your Facebook page but frankly you don’t take any kind of criticism well, do you?
There are only one sort. Those that do not wish to address the argument because they cannot defeat it and do not wish to accept the conclusion. My work cannot be “found wanting” without first reviewing it. Otherwise it is a prejudiced rejection.
BTW, I have spent quite a bit of money having my work professionally edited on many occasions to ensure that all quality requirements are met. This makes no difference.
Calling my work “batshit” is not criticism. It is prejudiced driven slander. I do not take slander well. This makes me very normal.
Given invariance of physical laws with respect to rotation, Noether’s theorem predicts conservation of angular momentum. You need to show why this is wrong.
Newton used conservation of angular momentum in part to derive Kepler’s second law of orbital mechanics from first principles. Why was he wrong to do so?
If angular momentum is not conserved - what happens to it? Do you have a theory that describes how it changes? Can you please derive the laws of orbital mechanics using your theory?
Given the success of our laws of orbital motion, predicting eclipses years ahead to sub-second accuracy, and our ability to design such feats as multiple orbital flypasts to propel spacecraft with astounding accuracy across the solar system, can you also provide laws that do not derive from conservation of angular momentum that yield the same performance?
Buzz Aldrin famously derived the manner in which orbital rendezvous could be accomplished. This was critical on the path to a lunar landing, and is used today every time a spacecraft docks with the ISS. Can you derive, from your theory, rules for orbital rendezvous?
What a load of nonsense. I do not need to prove anything more than I have already proven. The law of conservation of angular momentum is wrong. Any theory developed after that initial mistake is based upon the mistake and will therefore very obviously confirm its own premiss. Presenting alternative theory and claiming that the alternative theory proves me wrong because it contradicts my conclusion, does not prove me wrong. It does not even address my argument. My argument is my theoretical papers. A theoretical paper is a logical argument. There is a burden of disproof. You must show false premiss, or illogic, or you must accept the conclusion. Any other behaviour is irrational by definition.
Your argument is called an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
I do not have to derive anything further than what is derived in my papers, which is that angualr energy is conserved in the one body problem, and angular momentum is not conserved at all. If we cannot even predict the one body problem then we are deluding ourselves that we making valid planetary predictions much like the supporters of the Ptolemaic system rejected Copernicus because they were making better planetary predictions and Copernicus could not do better. How stupid do they look now?
The simplest proof is the fact that angular momentum is defined as L = r x p, therefore it is dependent upon the radius and it is defined to change when the radius changes.
But the conclusions mentioned by Francis Vaughan were not merely derived from the law of preservation of angular momentum in the form of logical syllogisms and then left at that; they are also confirmed empirically over and over again, which is precisely the point. Planets and man-made spacecraft do behave as predicted by the laws of orbital mechanics. If you get rid of the law of preservation of angular momentum, in which orbital mechanics are rooted, then you need to come up with an alternative explanation why orbital mechanics actually do work the way orthodox physics predict them to work.