No problem: get well.

now,

before I will show you my geometrical-mathematical-mechanical explanation of moment-of-inertia beeing mr² I will deviate a moment for giving one link of a video-software:

SMplayer-Video Software ( works even for Linux) : https://www.smplayer.info/en/

    With smplayer you can scale the time-base down to at least video-speed ( fps = 24 equals 0.041 s ) , so one can catch
    the moment if momentum-transfer happens between two masses.

May be you have a better software but this one can be customized as you wish at least down to a millisecond

If you like to use this software give me feedback I will then provide you with the information about how to customize it.


Mike

A one kilogram mass moving 1 m/sec, in a straight line, can be caught in a circular path. After rotating 360° it can be released into a linear path still moving at the same velocity.

Before the circle: 1 kg * 1 m/sec = 1 kg * 1 m/sec: after the circle         The event is equal to itself.

The radius of this circle can be of any length; which gives you an infinite number of mr²; which then gives you an infinite number of angular momentums (L).

One circle can be compared against any other circle and none of them have the same mr² or L.

Does conserved mean an infinite number of answers for the same thing 1 kg * 1 m/sec.?

Don't waste time proving mr² and L. They are wrong; just move on.

Those that believe in energy conservation also violate physics Laws.

Suppose you have 10 kg moving east at 1 m/sec on dry ice.
You transfer all of the motion to one kilogram moving east on dry ice.
How fast is the 1 kg moving; what Law do you violate with your prediction?

My camera takes a picture every 1/240 of a second; and I can do a frame by frame. You can not divide beyond 1/240th.

Your quote:
"Suppose you have 10 kg moving east at 1 m/sec on dry ice.
You transfer all of the motion to one kilogram moving east on dry ice.
How fast is the 1 kg moving; what Law do you violate with your prediction?"

Its clear for me...its a good and simply way to explain the principle at work....however nature does not show us the full transfer of momentum in linear motion...because the "Plus-Element" is missing.
It only works in circular motion.

So what is this Plus-Element ? It is virtual mass added to the spheres during transition until the cylinder stops.

Inertia of a mass is a quality shared with and by space. There is enough space between the nucleus and the orbitals of the electrons

Have you studied Prof. Aspens work about his discovery of virtual inertia :

http://www.aetherscience.org/www-energyscience-org-uk/le/Le30/le30.html

Do you have a practical setup to proof that this 10kg to 1 kg momentum-transfer can be done in Translational-Mode ?
I do have one but the ever persisting problem remains:  the practical solution ( mechanical )

I would be interested in what camera you have .

I do not think that its a waste of time to explain geometrical-physical-mechanical principles

mr² holds true if you experience inertia of rotating masses from the center of rotation and does not violate the conservation of moment of inertia

After more than two weeks now my head is becoming clear of the flue side-effects so I will work on my explanation


Mike

From Microsoft Bing

con•ser•va•tion:  physics
the principle by which the total value of a physical quantity or parameter (such as energy, mass, linear or angular momentum) remains constant in a system which is not subject to external influence.

Note: 'not subject to external influence'

How did I miss this: Kepler never said anything about angular momentum; that was introduced by others, later.

From stackexchange

Explain how Kepler's 2nd law - "The radius vector from the Sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal time intervals" - can be understood in terms of angular momentum conservation.

Can be understood by others 'later'; and not stated by Kepler.

Conservation of angular momentum can not apply in space because of the outside influence of the gravitational center; Sun, Earth etc..  Angular momentum doesn't work anywhere. And it was not even proposed by Kepler.

If anyone can show that Kepler did propose L: let me know.