I just wanted to put in a quick link to the most spectacular display of angular momentum that I’ve seen. Smarter Every Day (former NASA engineer now YouTube scientist/communicator attempted to break the longest home run hit.It is a great total video. However during one of the trials (@5:50) a bat breaks and is thrown over 300’ into the outfield. Angular momentum is a thing!
Your comment 54 is a gish gallop of red herring logical fallacies.
The flyby anomaly means that our predictions are not accurate. Minimising it with wishful thinking is nonsense.
Presenting an experimental setup is BS. That is not empirical evidence. It is more wishful thinking.
Any experiment will confirm my claim that angular energy is conserved and making wishful thinking claims that it is confirmed every day when you have zero evidence to back up your claim is nonsensical speculation.
A crackpot is the person making endless wishful thinking unsupported claims. Present counter evidence before you claim it exists. Crackpot.
You claim that a ball on a string is a qualitative demonstration but physics has claimed for three hundred years that a ball on a string demonstration using an ad hoc mass and a random thread conducted in the bare hands of a professor in open air will conserve angular momentum and that friction and hand wobble and gravity will have a negligible effect on the results. The fact that this demonstration has been observed many times over and always behaves very similarly is confirmation that these influences are in fact negligible. My example 2 is a perfect confirmation that angular energy is conserved which also backs up the claim that these influences are in fact negligible. The fact is that a ball on a string demonstration is a very good experimental apparatus and quantitative measurements of it confirm my work precisely.
I have never claimed a conspiracy. My claim contradicts deeply held beliefs, so there is resistance which is natural.
Present empirical evidence which counters the evidence that I have provided, or address my papers.
comment #54 is entirely evasion.
Your arguments are all defeated.
If you are insisting that I must respond to nonsense that contains zero “factual evidence” with factual evidence, then you are a biased moderator.
It is ad hominem to suggest that I lack understanding. This is terrible behaviour for a moderator.
To accuse me of not addressing criticism is simply making false accusations. I have addressed and defeated every argument presented against my work.
Practically every comment here is logical fallacy, evasion and ad hominem attack.
You should be moderating that.
Show me a ball on a string demonstration that achieves similar acceleration to a Ferrari engine as is predicted by physics. Until then, you are deluding yourself with irrelevant examples.
This is an ad hominem attack. Where are the moderators now?
Your link does not provide any direct evidence and it is wishful thinking to claim that it does. You present logical fallacy and therefore your argument is defeated.
Your ad hominem attack is not respectable behaviour.
Address my papers, or present direct counter evidence to the examples I have provided in support of my papers.
All you have to do is press the little red triangle in the upper right hand corner of his post to bring it to the attention of the moderators.
Then again, virtually his every post includes accusing the other participants of prejudice and various logical fallacies including most often ad hominem (all the while demanding that the supporters of the established theory bear the burden of counterproof) so I believe the Mods are aware of his complaint.
I’ve already addressed your papers. They are not formal proofs.
Ok lets start with these three.
[1] Worthington, A. M. (1910). Dynamics of rotation: an elementary introduction to rigid dynamics. Longmans, Green, and Company.
[2] Wilson, E. B. (1915). Linear Momentum, Kinetic Energy, and Angular Momentum. The American Mathematical Monthly, 22(6), 187-193.
[3] Battin, R. H. (1999). An Introduction to the Mathematics and Methods of Astrodynamics, revised edition. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
These proof provided in the first book in particular is direct count evidence to your belief. Further, the third citation shows that the conservation of angular momentum is empirically detected.
If I may repeat that meme so popular on this board:
3… 2… 1…
You are the one making the claim - you need to show us an experiment that disproves current science (the science that makes the predictions that allow for construction of the computers being used in this discussion).
I don’t have the knowledge to do such, and I don’t see any “papers” to review in the conventional sense.
Mandlbaur, please forgive me, since I may have missed this in your posts. Would you please favor us with your academic credentials RE this subject? It’s a simple question. Have you taken, and passed (as I have), introductory physics, high school physics, college physics and/or any related subjects?
I ask this, not to belittle you, but because if you have taken these subjects and passed with adequate grades, you should be able to understand the concepts you learned, and won’t continue to propose things that are repeatedly proven false in class, not to mention experiments conducted centuries ago.
OTOH, if you never took these courses, may I respectfully suggest that you enroll in the appropriate classes? They may prove educational and enlightening, and will show you how to approach such subjects in a way that will either (1) show you the error of your thinking, or (2) show you how to convincingly prove conventional thinking is wrong. If (2), you will likely win the Nobel Prize, so it’s not a trivial tackle.
If you’re going to participate in this forum, you need to comply with moderator instructions, in particular to provide factual evidence for your claims. Since you are evidently unwilling or unable to do so, this is closed.