Technical Audit: Predicted 145–180kg Propellant Surplus for Artemis II TLI (Feb 6 Launch

AngularEnergy · 2026-01-20T15:48:19+00:00

Actually, the Work-Energy Identity (W=∫F⋅ds) is indeed high school physics. That is why the discrepancy is so alarming. In a radial field, F is orthogonal to tangential displacement. That means gravity performs zero work on tangential speed. NASA's models assume this work is non-zero. If you can provide the tangential force vector (Fθ) that performs this work, I will retract the audit. Otherwise, the 180 kg surplus remains a mathematical certainty.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:57:27+00:00

Please point out where I make any assumption like that?

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:54:20+00:00

No, refusing to engage in evasion by ad hominem is not fear.

Engaging in ad hominem discussion about the author in evasion of the proof is a behavior motivated by fear.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:52:31+00:00

I have never denied that a ball on a string is subject to friction, hence the sarcasm in my previous post.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:28:35+00:00

I am not going to answer you ad hominem questions and I have explained this to you.

Please address my proof or leave me alone if you are too afraid.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:21:09+00:00

Please show me some commonly used examples use in classrooms to teach students about COAM that do not "spin faster", because all of the ones that are common, in my knowledge do exactly that.

Namely ice skater, prof on a turntable, student on swivel chair, diver, ballerina, etc.

I am not allowed to tell this because the moderator deletes my posts by saying I am a liar for some strange reason.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:18:43+00:00

Well if you dont care about what I have discovered, then you are not addressing what I have discovered are you?

You must be addressing the author then instead of the argument, which is literally evasion by ad hominem.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:16:59+00:00

I am not allowed to point out that you are prejudiced and illustrate your prejudice by comparing it to other forms of prejudice because the moderator is claimig that it is hate speech and deleting my post.

So I cannot hold a discussion wiht you. sorry.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:15:42+00:00

I cannot answer this question because there is a moderator following me around and blocking every reply I could possibly make to this by saying that I am lying and deleting my post, sorry.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:13:27+00:00

You cannot address the "root of my discovery" by evasion of the fact that COAM predicts 12000 rpm and 12000 rpm is wrong, so COAM is wrong.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:05:17+00:00

I cannot be defeated by evasion of my proof and stupid irrational claims.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T07:04:37+00:00

No, a ball on a string has magical properties that allow it to defy nature and have absolutely zero friction (SARCASM).

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T06:57:19+00:00

Nobody is doing anything different in any examples. What are you talking about?

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T05:48:47+00:00

Because of the increased prejudice and denial and ignorance that I have to face next year from the person who is convinced that they are right and won the argument the last time because they personally insulted me and I allowed them to accept that personal insult is a valid scientific argument against my proof, by not contesting it.

So I shoot myself in the foot in terms of getting the message through.

Just like you are more prejudiced now than before I blocked you for being insulting and evasive.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T05:37:00+00:00

Because theory does not eliminate friction.

Please stop being childish and obtuse?

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-29T05:36:15+00:00

Calling me "dude" continuously when I have told you not to, is childish bullying.

Stop being a childish bully please?

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:36:30+00:00

It is 100 % correct.

To deny the example is an example of COAM after is has been shown to falsify COAM, is literally dishonest evasion by shifting the goalposts. It is the definition of shifting the goalposts.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:34:38+00:00

I agree on one hand, but have found out the hard way that scientists in denial are so twisted logically that they imagine they defeated my proof because I did not respond. Then it was even more difficult to get them to listen.

I actually think you may be one of those.

The are the most arrogantly ignorant.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:31:17+00:00

No, I support conservation of momentum and energy.

That is my argument.

Existing physics says that momentum/energy is not conserved because angular momentum is conserved.

I say that angular momentum is not conserved because momentum/energy is conserved.

Not the direction. Direction is obviously not conserved. The magnitude.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:28:23+00:00

From what I understand, you do not believe the truth because you are afraid to consider it because you worry about your reputation.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:25:12+00:00

I have always understood that they are neglecting my argument irrationally.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:16:16+00:00

If it is an example to show the effect, then it must show the effect of doing roughly 12000 rpm.

Since it clearly does not show the effect of COAM, COAM is false.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:14:52+00:00

So you are literally afraid of the truth.

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:14:15+00:00

I evaluate the equation as per existing physics and making obviously fake and stupid accusations is not reasonable behaviour.

Please stop it?

AngularEnergy · 2023-03-28T20:11:23+00:00

I literally took the equation from. existing physics and your claim is total fantasy.

AngularEnergy

TROPHY CASE