Please provide constructive criticism on my paper

[Mandlbaur]

http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Ghideon]

Hello, 

It is not rekommenderas to post only a link, please post details here on the forum.  

I was curious and clicked the link and found:

Quote

The law of conservation of angular momentum is fallacy

Maybe this was intended for the speculations section?

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. 

@Mandlbaur note that you must present your idea here, not just provide a link to your paper. 

Please read the special rules that apply to this section of the forum. 

 

[DrP]

I didn't like the title   -  it sounded a bit axe grindy as thought the conclusions drawn were going to be the same what ever you observed.

Hated the Abstract. - It explained nothing about what the 'paper' was about and just looks like an attempt to ridicule when it actually looks like you have probably missed something or drawn a wrong conclusion.  The intro doesn't introduce anything other than your claim.

I nearly gave up after the first line of the intro. Why state that you are not an academic  -  is that so you can just shrug it off if pointed out that it is wrong or something?

10000 / 1 = 1000000%? What do you mean?   For a reduction of string length from 1m to 1 cm there would be a huge centripetal force required to keep it going -  what am I missing?....  or - what are YOU missing do you think?   ;-) (EDIT:  - I think you are adding the energy yourself when you shorten the string - you have to pull it in by force). 

I think you are missing something or have made an error somewhere -   Why in line 21 is v1 = v2? There was no explanation of what you were doing - just a list of equations and relationships. Again - you have probably made a logic error somewhere that someone can point out to you.

 

I didn't like the sarcasm about solving an energy crisis by installing a professor with a string and a ball in a village. If you were serious you would avoid any attempt at humour. If your paper was to change the way scientists thought about something so well thought to be kwon then you would want to do it humbly and respectfully and you would be held as a marvel  --  as it is you look like a crank.

 

You need to explain the conclusions - not just expect people to see where your list of equations contradict reality. It is a bold claim and needs explaining  -  I expect you have made a mistake somewhere or misunderstood something being honest (and I am being kind). Spoon feed me it.  Although I expect someone will just see a flaw in the logic somewhere. I mean - I expect work is done or something like that when the radius in shortened... Someone will spot it.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by DrP

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, DrP said:

I nearly gave up after the first line of the intro. Why state that you are not an academic  -  is that so you can just shrug it off if pointed out that it is wrong or something?

 

4

+1 for reading past the Abstract.

Edited November 6, 2018 by dimreepr

[DrP]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

+1 for reading past the Abstract.

Ha ha - thank you.   I was just trying to see where he went wrong as he clearly believes what he/she is saying.  -  it isn't my field, but I have studied some physics to degree level so thought I'd have a look.  I think he maybe overlooking that you have to do work to draw in the string when going from 1 m to 1 cm....  I can't remember  -  of course the energy will be higher if it is spinning faster.  Someone like Swansont will probably just know off the top of his head without having to look this up...  I might have to look it up and think longer though.  I was hoping someone would know and point it out. It is probably more complex than just the centripetal force that you need to overcome to draw in the string from 1m to 1 cm that I mentioned.   I am at work and can give no further time to it.

 

 

[Strange]

As others have noted, I would keep the snarky and condescending comments out if you want to be taken seriously.

I would like to see the derivation/context of equation 1 ([math]\omega_2 = (\frac{r_1}{r_2})^2 \omega_1[/math]). I have looked through Halliday and Resnick, 9th Edition, and can't find anything like it.

Your equation 10 uses the formula for linear kinetic energy, not rotational. I can't be bothered to work through the rest of it to see if this is the source of your error.

You say that conservation of angular momentum makes predictions that contradict "reality" (your measured results, I assume). But you don't demonstrate this. Where are the experimental results?

 

[swansont]

Quote

Clearly there is a mistake somewhere.
Since reality is the truth which physics is attempting to model, the mistake must lie in the physics

!

Moderator Note

No, the mistake is with the person trying to implement the physics, and doing it incorrectly.

We've been through this before, you steadfastly refused to accept that you were in error, and you were told not to re-introduce the topic
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106547-in-the-angular-momentum-equation-l-r-x-p-when-the-magnitude-of-the-radius-changes-which-one-of-the-remaining-variables-is-correctly-conserved/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-999293

We're not going another 12 rounds of this nonsense.