If you can’t derive laws that accurately predict known phenomena - such as orbital mechanics - without using conservation of angular momentum - you have nothing.
Orbital mechanics should be a gift. No friction, no torque, just bodies in motion affected by gravity. Centuries of observation. Everything should be laid out in front of you to prove your point. Newton could do the derivation of Kepler’s second law 300 odd years ago. You claim he was wrong. Prove it.
Derive Kepler’s second law without conservation of momentum.
You can’t. Not a matter of won’t, don’t have to, or whatever. You can’t.
Science is predictive. Given your theory, make a testable prediction, one with numbers.
Like I said, orbital mechanics are a gift here. You should be able to predict with accuracy at least as good as our current mathematics some simple orbital mechanics results.
If you can’t, you simply have nothing, and no amount of rhetoric or accusations of logical fallacy will help.
I’m a scientist. I just “peer” reviewed your papers.
Relevance:
3: (fair)
Originality:
1: (poor)
Research significance:
1: (poor)
Positioning of research:
1: (poor)
Technical quality:
1: (poor)
Form - Organization and readability:
1: (poor)
Reviewer’s confidence:
5: (high)
Comments for the author:
In each case, your proofs are not proofs. Take for example:
The first sentence is a statement of background. The second sentence is a restatement of the first sentence, or more background. The third sentence is a statement of aim. The fourth sentence is a statement of motivation. The fifth statement is the aim. This is not a proof.
Additionally, overall, the papers are severely lacking in quality. There is insufficient discussion given to how these findings fit within the context of the literature. Conclusions are severely lacking. Overall recommendation, the paper is rejected .
Come on, this is just obviously silly. Who has ever claimed this? When a ball on a string held in the hands by is used didactically, it’s to demonstrate the qualitative effect, not to take quantitative measurements to show the precise magnitude of the effect.
You don’t dispute the qualitative effect, that it speeds up as the radius decreases. You’re making a quantitative argument, that it does not speed up as much conventional theory predicts.
In support of your quantitative claim, your video is useless. Do you really expect people to take that seriously as an experiment? It shows you casually waving a yoyo around your head.
You are considering what the theory predicts assuming no friction and no torque is applied. And you are considering an extreme case - tenfold reduction in the length of the string - when theory predicts very rapid rotation. Common sense should tell you that in order to take a valid quantitative measurement under the assumption of no friction or torque you must devise an experimental setup that can rotate at 12,000 rpm without significant friction or torque. Yet your setup is simply to wave a yoyo around your head, with the string held in your hands? I can see your hands moving around and applying torque and friction to the string at a tiny fraction of that speed.
What you acknowledge is happening is pretty much the definition of when there is torque - when the force is not directly toward the center of rotation, when there’s an offset. Imagine a string wrapped around a cylinder, with the end of the string hanging loose. If you pull on the string at a tangent to the surface of the cylinder, the cylinder will rotate.
I’ll modify what I said previously, at which point I hadn’t looked at your “papers”. They all seem to consist of one or two pages of widely spaced text. There are numerous unsubstantiated assertions made solely in writing. No new theory is presented. There are no new experimental results presented, just vague allusions to experiments that you claim to have done; nor is there any reference to the vast literature of prior experimental results.
A review means a thorough reading of the content, which I previously assumed had not taken place. But of course it has, because there’s so little there, and it only takes a couple of minutes to read them. The person who wrote the rejection letters reviewed them as thoroughly as anyone could. They haven’t been rejected because they were pre-judged without reading them. They obviously were read, since that take so little time, and were judged on their merits.
Mandlbaur, you seem to be basically in the position of a high school student of physics who has found something that doesn’t seem to make sense. That’s hardly unusual, I’m not far beyond that stage myself! The right course of action is to find someone with a much better understanding of physics to explain what you have missed. If you’re actually in high school, that would be your teacher. Here, Chronos, Francis Vaughan et al are trying to help you do that.
But instead of trying to learn, with barely a high school student’s knowledge of physics, you’re sending “papers” to journals making unsupported assertions that some fundamental principle of physics is wrong? Supported by no theory and no experimental results? You’re making a fool of yourself.
Really, you need to get some perspective, and better insight into your own abilities. Stop talking and listen. If you’re keen on physics, you first need to do some hard work. Enroll in college and learn some. You can’t seek to overturn something unless you first understand it.
I am not a physicist and struggled through college physics many years ago. Without reference to the current “controversy”, i have observed that:
Many people who promote alternative scientific (or pseudoscientific) theories insist that others must prove them wrong, otherwise their theories stand. This is untrue.
The way science works is that the Brave Maverick Scientist (BMS) is obliged to supply convincing evidence that his/her theories/speculations are correct. Others may in the course of debunking the BMS choose to cite chapter and verse on why the BMS is wrong and exactly where he/she went off the rails. But there is no obligation to do so.
They who make the claims must supply the evidence. If it is grossly lacking, curt dismissal (or even pointing and laughing) are appropriate responses.
Or to put it another way, yes, mainstream scientists of the time attacked Galileo’s work, and Einstein’s. And they were correct to do so, because that is how science works. The reason why Galileo and Einstein are today regarded as great scientists, and their theories accepted, is that they withstood all of those attacks. When you show such great resentment to criticism of your work, and complain about everyone being prejudiced against you, that in itself shows me that you don’t understand the scientific method, and that your ideas are likely not worth spending much time on. If you understood science, you would rejoice at your ideas being attacked, and take it as an opportunity.
This is especially critical to understand. One of the foundations of science is criticism. That’s one of the reasons the granting of a research-based M.Sc. and Ph.D have a final defense of the thesis. It is to ensure that the scientific work done is rigorous and sound. Everything I’ve ever proposed, presented and published has been met with critique.
If you are trying to overturn 300 years of established science that is validated by empirical measurements, then the onus is on you to rigorously show how and why the current theory is wrong. In other words, you need to do your homework.
And as others have said, criticism should be encouraged and welcomed. It should be viewed as an opportunity, not an attack. If you view it as an attack, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.
If spacecraft behaved as predicted, then we would not have the flyby anomaly. The fact the we have the flyby anomaly proves that our predictions are not accurate. The flyby anomaly does not only happen when the object is in flyby, it happens all the time, but we are unaware of it until the object comes close enough that we can detect it.
There is no direct empirical evidence that angular momentum is conserved.
I have presented direct independent blind result experiment which confirms that angular energy is conserved with a perfect result.
I do not need to “come up” with anything more. There is zero counter evidence.
Scientists have for the last four years refused to conduct any experiment. I have challenged them, attempted to contract them, bribed them, offered a prize, I believe that I will have to blackmail a scientist before they will perform the simplest of experiments. A ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum experiment. Measure an ad hoc mass attached to a random thread in a ball on a string demonstration conducted in open air in the wobbling hands of a professor.
This is the proper scientific resolution.
I have provided overwhelming results doing exactly that as well as an independent perfect blind result confirmation. Everything I present is disregarded as not good enough. Even the third party evidence. What I am presenting is the only evidence because there is no counter evidence.
It is unscientific to reject the only evidence.
The scientific method is to reproduce the experiment and show that the results are different.
This cannot be done because the ball on a string always behaves very much the same. Any one that you measure will confirm that angular energy is conserved.
Therefore, no scientist will confirm it because they don’t want to believe the truth.
This is an important unsolved problem, but it’s a tiny anomaly, it’s an effect many orders of magnitude smaller than the gross error that you claim all physicists have been making.
Physics students do rigorous quantitative experiments every day to prove that angular momentum is conserved. It took me 30 seconds to find one setup online, carefully designed to minimize friction and torque. There even appears to be standard kit for students to do this type of experiment, which shows you how often it’s done.
Do you really imagine that nobody would ever have noticed if these experiments that students carry out every day didn’t work as expected?
Where are your experimental details and results?
On the contrary, they did these experiments themselves as students, and their own students are doing them every semester. You’re not being ignored because they don’t want to do the experiments, you’re being ignored because you have the demeanour and lack of scientific literacy of a typical crackpot.
I’ve explained to you that the ball on a string is used a simple qualitative demonstration. It very obviously does not satisfy the assumptions of no friction and no torque, especially at high speeds, and cannot conceivably be used for quantitative measurements. Yet, because you’ve seen such a demonstration several times on youtube, you make the bizarre assumption that this setup is the epitome of modern experimental physics?
So, it’s a conspiracy among all scientists to hide the truth? Why? Nobody has any stake in boring old established science, quite the opposite. The greatest scientific prestige comes from new science. If there were a grain of truth in your claims, scientists would be all over it, with Nobel Prizes up for grabs.
I did not offer an understanding, I have explained what has happened and this is an ad hominem attack.
Your link is a simplistic appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Go and google conservation of angular momentum violation and you will get more results and it proves nothing. You are being childish.
The only way to resolve this scientifically is for you to present a measurement of a ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum conducted in open air in the wobbling hands of the experimenter and confirm if my claim is correct that a standard ball on a string demonstration of conservation of angular momentum actually conserves angular energy.
What he is saying is that you do not have an understanding of the mindset of the average scientist or even of the science you think is wrong. What I am saying is that you do not have an understanding of what is required of you to get published in journals or even what journals you should be submitting your work to once you do the proper work(which you have not even begun to do). What you seem to have is a basic misunderstanding based on a lack of proper study.
My link at post #54 was to a specific experimental setup that physics students do every day to make precise quantitative measurements proving conservation of angular momentum. Any comment on that? The first thing you need is this for $169, didn’t take long to find. Everything else is listed on that experimental protocol.
If you think all the many thousands of physics students who have done this experiment are in a vast conspiracy to hide the results, you could do it yourself pretty easily. Sounds like as an inventor and motorbike enthusiast you should have the skills to set this up quite easily. It would be cheaper than trying to bribe people or offer prizes, and less likely to get you in trouble than blackmailing them.
Any response to my comments at post #54 about this experiment? I think they deserve a response if you’re seriously interested in dialog. If you’re not going to give a substantive response to my comments at post #54, I’m done here too.
Mandlebaur, I am instructing you to respond to the points made by BeepKillBeep and Riemann with factual evidence, not your opinions. Speaking as a scientist myself, it is rather clear at this point that you lack a basic understanding of science as well as the peer review process. This forum is not intended to as a place for you to repeat your ideas without addressing criticism of them. If you fail to do so, this thread will be closed.
Sir, there is an old joke with the punchline, “They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” You are neither Galileo nor Newton. Stop and learn before you get mistaken for Bozo.