Bender

I mostly agree, but the religious morality I know of isn't very nuanced, needs lots of interpretation to apply it to the present and is far behind secular morality in terms of equality and liberty. Except for a history lesson, which has its value, I do not agree that religion is still relevant to modern morality. If anything, it is holding us back.

Never mind your error. If prof. Lewin had bothered, he could easily have modified the estimates he used to fit the measurements exactly, since the result is quite sensitive to deviations. He didn't bother, because that was not the purpose of the demonstration. I notice how you still persist in ignoring the issue that angular momentum is nothing but an application of Newton's laws of motion.

"I have noticed" is not really a reliable source.

The "ethics" that religion brings us is nothing but universal rules required for a social group to function, with some extra's. We can do without the extra's added by religion (as illustrated by your Inka example, where the practices were the result of religion). The main purpose of the extra's is usually to increase the power of the (religious) leaders anyway. That's why a secular government is superior.

You are free to believe that, but that doesn't make it true. There is also no contradiction with the logic in the OP, since, as has been carefully explained by different members, it doesn't apply. Ok, I'll rephrase it more scientifically: the predicted time was [math]1.2 \pm 0.5 s[/math] and the measured time is [math]1.7 \pm 0.3 s[/math]. Since the error ranges overlap quite a bit, there is no significant difference and the zero hypothesis holds.

If these are not actual states, how can you explain particles interfering with themselves?

The chronological separation does not support it. It is not because we only become aware of a decision later that it is not a decision we want to make. Our preprocessing obeys our motivations. Other than that, you are free to disagree based on your discussion with Eise, but these elements don't favour one view over the other.

Of course, I am not trying to discredit you. Apparently, you have no problem with conservation of linear momentum. If, on top of that, you agree with Newton's laws of motion, your problem with conservation of angular momentum is nonsensical. Angular momentum can be seen as a mathematical construct derived using nothing more than Newton's laws of motion and rigorous mathematics. Denying one means denying the other; acknowledging one means acknowledging the other. As I said: spot on. There is easily 10-20% error on your measurement. The expected time as per the estimations is not "1.2 seconds", but "somewhere about 1.2 seconds", especially since he probably just approximated his body as a uniform cylinder, which is obviously a pretty large simplification. Obviously, both are conserved . Of course, only the total linear momentum is conserved, and the total linear momentum is zero throughout the entire experiment, since the centre of mass remains stationary. EDIT: the linear momentum you refer to in the equation is the linear momentum of individual small parts of the professor and the weights. That is not conserved, since there are forces acting between all the individual parts. Adding all the linear momentum of all the parts however, keeps adding up to zero.

Temperature can play a role if you heat the air inside the sealed bag, which will also increase its pressure. The can be done regardless of outside temperature or pressure, so it is not really relevant to the original question.

I didn't know about the reputation, but I agree with your position.

So what are the angular velocities in the demonstration? When his arms are stretched, it takes about 2 s to take half a turn; when his arms are to his chest, it takes less then 1 s (I honestly can't measure it more precise than that from the video). His very rough estimates predict a tripling of the angular velocity, so in the second situation that would be about 0.7 s, which is spot on, given the accuracy of the demonstration and the accompanying estimates (which is already orders of magnitude more accurate than your demonstrations). What does your calculation claim? I am genuinely interested in how you would calculate/estimate this without conservation of angular momentum. EDIT: you never answered my question about how you feel about conservation of linear momentum and Newton's laws of physics. If you still refuse to, I'll have to assume you are either trolling or that you want to avoid having to rethink your misconceptions.

Thank you for your insights. I think it has to be viewed as a relatively low-budget proof of concept experiment.

So anyone without an eating disorder is free to decide what to eat. Even your friend is free to choose between pasta, potatoes and toast.

I'd like to see your analysis of this demonstration, which is significantly better than the sling thing, since it actually approaches an isolated system. How would you calculate the speed after the professer pulls the weights to his chest? The body of the professor clearly speeds up, yet its radius remains constant.

If the speed remains constant, as you claim, why don't you measure it? Could you also please answer this question:

They become dependent because you apply them to an isolated system, not because of angular momentum. In fact, you could skip the angular momentum completely and do the calculations entirely without the concept of angular momentum and end up with the same result. I didn't see any evidence, only very poorly performed demonstrations. The friction between the wire and the tube is enormous, the diameter of the hole in the tube is not negligible, and the centre of the circular motion does not remain stationary. All of this contribute to a torque on your system, which means it is not isolated and conservation of momentum does not apply. As has been pointed out, the only purpose of this demonstration is to qualitatively show that there is indeed some change in angular velocity. EDIT: perhaps you should try calculating/measuring the linear momentum, which you claim should be independent of the radius.

"momentum and radius are independent"

You keep repeating that, but one of the premises in your logical argument is still wrong.

What's so special about you or me?

Do your video's contain quantised measurements? Also, you didn't answer my question:

How do you define an observer?

The accuracy and resolution of a 3D printer is nowhere near what is required for lenses. Lenses to correct for astigmatism already exist, though.

Why would you control such a spaceship manually?

Of course they do. Only a tiny minority interprets the calls for violence the way ISIS does.

Isn't it more like the opposite of the Many Worlds interpretation? In MW, "observing" a particle splits off another universe and the particle continues to exist in all parallel universes.