except that you can't solve a simple system yourself and in the end you used a program to solve it (i saw what you pasted... don't lie), that you don't test your own solutions in what you write, that since the tetherball in reality works properly your analysis is wrong...
you still think you are right?
and if you still think you are right, what do you base it on?
i know speeds of yoyos with 1 m radius, i find out speeds with 2 m radius aplying conservation of momentum and energy an i get an imposible result, you can test it your self
if i have no mistakes it would prove conservation to be wrong
and yes i used the program to solve the system, thats why i didnt check the answer, that and that i already knew it couldnt give positive solutions, its easy to see
your analysis does not agree with the reality of the experiment. (you haven't even completed the analysis and you won't find even one who says your analysis is correct)
i asked you a simple tetherball with 2 m radius at 1 m/s initially what final speed will have when the radius is 1 m?
you not only dont know since you havent studied this but you dont care
you just base on the authority criteria, you have studied so much while i have to study so much that myself explaining it in detail doesnt count a bit compared to you just saying you are wrong because
i have a vision, yourself studying these physics in your next life and saying oh how could people have been that stupid in the past and be so convinced momentum is conserved when its obvious is not in spiral motion
besides im improving at maths and physics so some day ill make myself so clear it will be undiscusible, besids wouldnt be odd a tetherbal breaking physics laws and i discovering it, no physicist ever estudied in college the tetherball
i don't have to do any analysis. your analysis is wrong. i don't have to go into details, since i can do the experiment in reality and see that the results you get to are not in agreement with reality.
i do not speak from "authority". it is widely held correctly that momentum is conserved. you make the claim that it is not conserved. you have to prove it. but your analysis is wrong, because it obviously does not agree with reality.
you're just a fool if you think that with your wrong analysis you actually showed that momentum is not conserved.
Post a sketch of your problem, labelled where required, so I can understand the problem properly. I don't really get why you've called rotational speed a translation, but maybe with a diagram I can understand. Your original picture wasn't very well explained.
Two masses at each end of the string, but how are they attached? Can I consider them as one solid body, or are they also doing something? Is the whole lot rotating.
Is the initial condition like this: @.@ where the @ is the coiled up string with a weight in the middle, all rotating about the dot, and the final condition like this: _._ with the strings straight and the weights at the end, all rotating in the middle. With the question being "what happens to the overall momentum in the system as it expands?"
Is that right, or am I totally missing the point. As an engineer (sort of) you will understand how critical it is to be clear in your problems and to communicate to us the issue.
is a solid weightless yoyo except for the 1 kg weights at a distance of 1 m from the ceter of the yoyo A
the radius of the axle i dont know it but i suppose is such that allows a translation from point b, the hold of the yoyo of 2 m/s and a rotation from the center of the yoyo A of 2 m/s
calculating the size of the axle so translation and rotation are 2 m/s im unable but i consider certain that with certain axle size i can get those initial speeds,wait i think thickness of axle should be 1 m radius
now i find difficult to mix linear and rotational momentums so instead of a solid yoyo i took an equivalent of 2 weights united by a weightless disc, of 1 kg each 1 m off center, it should have a momen of inertia equivalent to a certain yoyo
on this way i consider momentum as linear with respect to the center of the yoyo A instead of angular, and the same for energy
ive been from 2000 believing cons of moentum is wrong and studying about it, since i had the idea for an inertial thuster, thats why i explain my self so bad, i think everybody knows what i know
Right... And what happens next? Do the big circular things spin around point B, but also flick so that their centre of gravity is inline with the string?
You see, you've posted some lines, but I have no idea what they are meant to be... When I do I'll try and help...
yes its a double yoyo spining in empty space both with a translation around center B and a rotation around center A, which i consider a translation as well being the weights eccentric, around center B
im trying to find out how it behaves as the radius of the double yoyo grows
seems to me momentum conservation and energy conservation cant accomplish at the same time in this case, of course i can be wrong but id like to know where and then what would the speeds be when the radius doubles, 2 m
Easy. Punch each guard and ask "Does this hurt", the one that says yes is the one that tells the truth, then ask the guard if this is the door home, if he says no, then it's the other door.
and you really think you can prove that conservation of energy and/or momentum is false? with yoyos?
your calculations are simply wrong. i don't have the courage to start pointing at errors, omissions, confusion or whatever else. i don't have to, either.
half the workings of the universe that we know is based on the idea of conservation of energy.
conservation of quantities in general. not just energy or momentum, but spin isospin etcetcetc
nothing can become of nothing.
if you can't solve a 2 real variable closed form system of equations (which means: a very simple system of equations) in your head, in mere seconds, don't expect to have a snowball's chance in hell to confront one of the most savagely tested axioms in the entire history of mankind.
they are guards, i don't think a punch will do much.
in my opinion the same that history is taught with bias, happens the same with all the rest of the subjects
we are taught in order to make us think certain way, for example magic doesnt exist but all tribes have a chaman who goes to the magic world
why should we believe more thousand of years of science than millions of years of tribal experience that includes magic, we are made to go antinature by science
that a concept is old doesnt prove a thing, take the 4th axiom of mathematics that say 2paralel lines doesnt cut,it took 24 centuries to discover with the euclidean geometry it was false, 2400 years of missconception
just think out of the box, how do ufos fly? they break all known laws of physics
and i believe the universe is nothing, matter is energy and energy is motion of matter or motion of motion, nothing, just an illusion, a mirage maybe even an hologram
and no the guards are stronger than you, eve if you hit them they will continue either alays lying or always telling the truth
Known this for yonks...ask either of them "If I asked the other guard-type-guy is this the door (and point to either door) home, what would he say?". Always do the opposite of the answer you get. And then kick him in the crotch for good measure.
Well, that's my physics contribution done. Now on to quantum electrodynamics
history is not a hard science. so the whole opinion/argument falls apart. you can use science to study history but history itself is not. bias in physics won't help you since you can carry out any experiment.
it's like saying "oh you say 2+2=4 because you are biased! 2000 years knowledge and it is wrong!"
some things just are. trying to argue them is just ****ing moronic.
the shaman who goes to the magic world? utter nonsense and completely irrelevant.
science is the study of nature. we've gone pretty further than the tribes have gone with their "millions of years" of "experience".
what the **** are you talking about? by definition parallels are called lines that never intersect... (staying on the plane here.) so by definition what you say is mindless babble. (and it is not mathematics. it is geometry. if you want to be called a scientist you have to speak like one.)
what? ufos? what the **** are you talking about again? since we don't know what they are or how they fly, it must mean that they break the laws of nature? the hell?
you are mixing science with philosophy in a very wrong way. study of nature (physics) doesn't care about the question "what is it?". matter, energy and motion have definitions in physics. maybe you don't know them, but that doesn't mean you can say such abstract things. you can say such things with no end.
paralel lines cut in euclidean geometry, it broke a 24 centry axiom, thats why geometry splitted from maths
i have my opinions, i did the different size ball experiment on a ramp and i will do it again, you wont, youll believe without questioning
btw according classical physics different size balls fall down a ramp at the same rate, you dont even know what classic physics says and neither you are gonna experiment it, another matter is hollow balls, but solid ones fall a the same rate, ill povide you with several mainstram physics links that say so later
is interesting to look listen learn, but 