$1,700 Challenge



STEPHEN BROUGH Silly Talking, soon Silly Walking



| mp4 saveAs link | webm saveAs link | mp3 audio link



The physics described by most scientists today isn't just unscientific (proclaimed without evidence) it is illogically full of unresolved paradoxes and contradictions.

The Universe runs on Energy and conventional physics doesn't understand any aspect of it.

The kinetic energy formula for example:

1/2 vmv
Was willfully created to Force reality to match religious daydreams. The history of its creation, defense, and eventual acceptance is a mockery of the scientific method. Truth was forsaken for agenda, evidence was exaggerated distorted and quote mined to support a plainly silly notion of reality...

""If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke (2 kg) away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime (2 grams) away from me at 1000mph.? If so isn't this proof against the kinetic energy formula?""

""Is there any physical evidence defending the kinetic energy theorem? The theory says an 8 lb bowling ball will produce twice as much "energy" as a 16 pound ball thrown with the same effort. No pro bowler can make A lighter ball work. Why? ""

""If I shoot two objects with inverse velocity to Mass ratios (for exp. 10m 5v vs 5m 10v) into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact?""

""Your theory says a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour has twice as much energy--ability to do work as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour. I claim you will never prove that to be true, and that if you actually collected the energy of the moving objects in a scientifically sensible manor it will be clearly demonstrated that they have the same capacity to do work.

Do you think a 5-ton 10 miles an hour train can do twice as much work has a 10 ton train going 5 miles an hour? Do you think you can create heat or deformation and transfer 100% of your momentum to another object?


What Is Energy? ...The sensible answer

What Is Gravity? ...The sensible answer

What Is A Photon? ...The sensible answer
On the correct theory of everything .

Abstract:

At some point in the early 1900s the science of physics committed itself to a confused dualism model of reality where things could be more than one thing. The controversy of wave vs particle became the compromise of particles waving and with that physics waved goodbye to a rationally comprehensible model\description of material reality.

I contend that the particle theory of reality was correct, and that the science of physics needs to return to the post Newton, pre Einstein, knowledgebase and reexamine particle based models of the universe's function.

It Is Proposed That:

The universe is in substance just made of one thing, let's call them "Force Bits", that are always moving the speed of light/force and come in two types "Electron Force" and "Proton Force". These "Force Bits" fill space, and are contained/trapped in matter, and are in essence all there is, and all that is. When trapped inside electrons, protons and neutrons they give matter its property's. When they arrive at a precise time interval we call them Light (photons, electromagnetic radiation). When filtered for Type by a magnetic material they are called Magnetism. When passing atom to atom in a conductor they are called Electricity. When accelerating planets into suns they are called Gravity. When pushing electrons, protons and neutrons together, and apart, they are the strong and week nuclear Forces.

2+2+2 Physics

The 2 Force Bits: Lets start with a clean slate. A great expanse of truly nothing. Now introduce a very simple something, A dense field of simple little bits that have a short list of simple properties:

1. In open space they move a constant speed (the speed of light/force) in straight lines.

2. They come in two types "Electron reflective bits" and "Proton reflective bits".

Considering the implications of such a field in motion, perhaps you can understand that it would create a kind of even pressure. That every point in the field would become a point of intersection or "convergence", effectively bombarded from every direction. If you were to place a "still" object in some/any position in the field it would be constantly jostled by pushing force coming from a constantly changing direction.

Now introduce the second still object close to the first.



Perhaps you can understand that the original object will be profoundly affected by the other objects presence... Now the straight line pressure will not be able to reach all surfaces evenly. This circumstance invents the shadow, and with it imbalance (energy), and with that movement. Through this mechanism the material universe is pushed together, not so much by the presence of force, but by the shadow of absence.

In the big universe we see this simple mechanism called Gravity hold matter in patterns and make solar systems and galaxies. On the level of the very small the very same mechanism holds "Matter" in patterns that become Atoms and molecules. Just as the space between planets is the same as the space between atoms, the force holding these things together, and pushing them towards or away from each other, is fundamentally the same. The universe isn't two places, big, and small, it is one place with one small set, of "small object", elemental properties.


The (only) 2 (real) Matter Bits: Returning to our simple imagined universe filled with a dense, straight-line Force, made of two types of bits. Let's add something real for the force to act on. Two types of clumpy elemental matter already known as The Electron and The Proton. These Matter bits, based on there relationship to each other, manifest the phenomenon of Charge, and are the conduit for Electricity and Magnetism. When placed in a field of force, they cause shadows and bright spots of imbalance in that field of pressure, and are forced to MOVE as directed by that imbalance in pressure.

The (only) 2 (meaningful) Universal Interactions: With 2 types of Force, and 2 Types of Matter, all you need is 2 types of interaction to explain all that is seen in the "complex" Universe. The 2 types of interaction can be superficially described as a reflection or a diversion, and the 2 types of mater reflect or divert the 2 types of force inversely. This opposite interaction provides a simple mechanism for the creation of what is commonly called, strong attraction, and strong repulsion. Being more technically accurate the matter bits are Forced/Pushed from high force pressure to low force pressure and there is no real attraction or Pull.

The Swimmer vs the Boat Rower Analogy: To make the interaction between Force bits and Matter bits easier to understand, see the force bits as being either a swimmer in a vast sea, or a rower in a boat in that sea. Understand that rowing or swimming, the force bits always stroke at the speed of light/force, and they either wear a red shirt or a blue shirt. As for the boats, they are either red or blue, they are only moved by the rowers (same shirt color as the boat) they hold, and they have a fixed number of rowing seats that are always filled. In action the simple boating rules are:

1. If a red swimmer hits a blue boat (a blue rower) the rower and the swimmer exchange direction. The red swimmer goes the direction the rower was going, and the rower rows in the direction the swimmer was going. The effective result is the swimmer is reflected back to its source and the boat experiences as much as a 2x change (in the case of a head-on collision) in its dimensional momentum in the direction the rower was rowing.

2. If a blue swimmer hits a blue boat (a blue rower) the rower and the swimmer exchange direction, but also exchange status, the swimmer becomes a rower and the rower becomes a swimmer. The effective result is no real change and it will look as if the swimmer just swam through the boat. The momentum of the boat does not change.

Just visa-versa if a red boat is hit.


The Kinetic Paradox:

In a pure kinetic interaction between indestructible (hard) masses with a velocity (momentum) there is created a paradox of sorts in the interaction can look either like something, or nothing, happened. Viewed one way the objects will have their velocities travel through each other and the universe after the interaction will look exactly like it would have if the interaction never happened. Viewed another way it can be understood that the masses completely interacted, and exchange their directional momentum, and the resulting universe is now substantially changed in that the objects have "individually" substantially changed (exchanged) directions.



It is argued that our reality is constructed by this simple process of kinetic interactions of quanta that causes a 90 degree change in direction, and in turn represents a complete exchange of identity. The quanta that make up the universe are at regular rates experiencing this change in identity, and this creates opportunity for the collection of identity in patterns and forms. In geometry a circle can be understood as a rounded square. A collection of four - 90 degree turns. In a mass of randomized kinetic interactions it can be understood to be just a matter of probability that there could be 4 interactions in sequence that might take an object back to its starting point and create, in essence, "a circular" path. It is a quality of the physical universe which enables such patterns to become durable that is responsible for all that we know as energetic matter. The material universe is just quanta in geometric patterns, and as those patterns combine, material structures are formed. In the very big universe, we see the simplicity that is also in the very small universe, but hidden from our perception.

The universal glue ...Kinetic field pressure:

In the big universe we see a mechanism we call gravity hold matter in patterns and make solar systems and galaxies. On the level of the very small the very same mechanism holds quanta in patterns that become matter. Just as the space between planets is the same as the space between atoms, the force holding these things together, and pushing them towards each other, is fundamentally the same. The universe isn't two places, big, and small, it is one place with one set of fundamental properties.




(added 1-30-16)

Colliding with the technicalities:

I would like to say the earth is pushed into the Sun and leave it at that, but the \93whole truth\94 is a bit more complicated . In a field of Kinetic Particle Pressure direction is exchanged, not really imposed, and the rate of exchange has circumstantial rules. For example, in the case of the Earth being gravitationally pushed toward the Sun, it might be more accurately stated that the Earth, and the Sun, Induce Acceleration in each other. Going to a level deeper, it could be said that the acceleration merely reflects Acquisition of Force arrows moving in the direction of the acceleration. Still deeper, it is understood that getting arrows will usually mean exchanging old arrows, going in some direction, for new arrows going in the new direction. It is here at the deepest level of the kinetics where the rules are applied, and the most important rule states, that a directional arrow (element of force) can only really exchange direction with an element moving in a perpendicular dimension. In more real world words, in the kinetic universe head-on collisions are the least meaningful accident as all elements of identity pass right through the interaction. If you were driving a blue car down the kinetic highway and you had a head on collision with a red car, after the interaction your blue car continues in the direction it was going, as does the red. On the other hand, if your blue car where to hit a red car moving, left to right, or up to down, after the interaction the red car would be going forward, and your blue car would be going right, or down. This little difference, as they say, makes all the difference in understanding acceleration and velocity in the Universal Kinetic Energy Field.

To understand any Force interaction, even gravity, you must first understand that all interactions in the real Universe are nuclear interactions. That is to say, the only stuff really moving in the universe are the little bits (quanta) and all their interactions take place at the speed of light (the speed of force).

As you understand that you are really a collection of cells, you should understand that at the elemental level everything in our medium-size world is also made of Elemental bits, and it is these elemental bits that are doing all the doing. Reduced to its simplest function all the action you see is a consequence of interactions between Elemental bits of Force (The free bits) and Fundamental bits of matter.

The Fundamental bits of matter are collections of Force bits in the structures called Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons. These structures, or "particles", contain force quanta moving in all the three dimensions and have the attribute of polarization that defines their individual character. The Electrons are oppositely polarized to the Protons and the Neutrons posses both polarization's (dipole).


Using Color to visualize polarization, imagine protons as containing red quanta and electrons as containing black. Now understand these particles to exist in a dense sea of free quanta of mixed polarization (red and black). When running the system the rules are very simple.



1. Collisions between matter bits and field bits that are of the same polarization cause a dual reflection. The free bit reverses direction as does the bit inside the matter particle.

2. Collisions between bits of different polarization only happen as perpendicular collisions and result in the bits essentially exchanging direction.

As example, let's start with a single electron in a relatively empty space. In simple terms it can be realize that the electron contains bits trying to push out in all directions, and that the external force bits are constantly pushing (reflecting) them back in. In a quiet well randomized environment it can be understood that the particle, and the force, achieve equilibrium and the only motion would be a random shutter, and the reflection back out of all the force that went in..


Now lets add a second electron and be more specific regarding the interactions. Because the particles are of the same polarization, and will reflect any Force of the same polarization (black), the Force between the two will be effectively trapped as you bring the particles closer together and increase the number of reflections and in turn the force of the elements of force. Likewise as you move the particles away from each other you proportionately decrease the repulsion between them.

The importance of this interaction must be emphasized as it is the cause of the strong repulsive Force seen when electrons are pushed into electrons or protons are pushed into protons. This trapping of force is what causes magnets to behave as they do, and it demonstrates that what we call attraction is really just a lack a repulsion.

Now consider what happens to the red polarized free elements that impact the particles. They will essentially reflect, but perpendicular to the angle of the impact. This means that any red force trapped between the two particles will essentially leak out and no extra red pressure will be created.

In the opposite polarization interaction something else also happens. The particle effectively experiences the interaction in two of its dimensions. A bit inside the particle changes from going left, right, up, or down, to going forward (the original direction of the force that hit the particle). As a consequence the particle gains little forward acceleration, but the particle also has its balance (equilibrium) in one of the other dimensions changed which, depending on its previous condition, could give it an imbalance acceleration in the opposite direction of the direction of the force left in. Put simply, in the opposite polarization interaction a particle may be moved in something other than a straight direction.





The interaction between particles of opposite polarization (protons and electrons) demonstrates clearly how attraction is really just an absence of repulsion. When an Electron is moved into the influence of a Proton the particles release, through perpendicular interactions, all the force that would have been trapped between them if they were of like polarisation. This prevents any Force pressure (increasing frequency of interaction) from being created between them, and creates a low pressure they will be "forced" into.

















Speaking of Shadows:

It is often the case that before a right idea can be seen the wrong ideas blocking vision must be removed. I think before you can fairly judge this theory of \93fundamental function\94 you must be liberated from any hard conclusion that the questions have already been properly answered. 100 years ago Albert Einstein proposed of vision of reality, and provided some good mathematics. Over the years physicists have converted that vision from theory, to fact, claiming it has predicted enough to have proven itself. I would claim that the proof has been overstated, and that the fundamental theory was engineered only to answer specific questions, and provides little as a complete or reasonable description of reality.

At the cornerstone of Einstein's explanation is the concept of space time. In brief, the idea is, this non material dimension acts and reacts on the three material dimensions and provides the energy for such things as gravity. We are to believe that this \93fabric of reality\94 bends, stretches, and dimples, and that matter obediently slides down the contours created. As a metaphor this model may produce some useful images, but as an explanation of reality it catastrophically fails coherency tests. The most glaring problems are the model only really works visually in two dimensions, and obviously matter exists in three, and when really analyzed the model only really works if it uses the forces it is supposed to be explaining. For example in the case of the \93convergence\94 known as gravity Einstein's model just basically says gravity is like falling down a well... Not much better than saying, the force of gravity comes from the force of gravity.

Seeing the light regarding light:

If there was an original sin that led to the corruption of physics it was the perversion of the photon into a beast of complex function. Read correctly \93the book of photon\94 is the Rosetta Stone of physics translating big matter forces, into small matter forces. The \93new classic\94 description of the photon has it classified as some kind of electromagnetic thing. Yet there is little evidence it can do anything purely electrical, or purely magnetic. This classification isn't describing what photons are, it's describing what happens when photons interact with matter. The new physics not only has photons causing effects, it has them effecting effects.

Starting over... let's list what we really know to be true about photons.

1. They generally move from point A to point B in a straight line
2. They generally move at 186,000 miles per second ...the same transmission speed as gravity and magnetism
3. They have a shape expressed as polarization
4. They are identifiable by a carried frequency
5. When emitted from a spherical source they dissipate at the same rate as gravity and magnetism obeying the inverse square rule.


I would argue that this list is substantially complete regarding what can be established as fact. Notice that nothing on the list precludes one form reasonably believing photons to be fundamentally small discreet bits separated by a distance frequency/wavelength, and little else. Once given permission to see photons in this form, and realizing we don't see most of the light surrounding us, the imagination doesn't have to wander far to realize that the pool of unseen photons maybe as deep as the proverbial \93Gravity Well\94.

In an effort to briefly tie this all together, photons are just a variety of quantions. They acquire their identifiable orientation-- frequency occurrence, and polarization -- as they are emitted from electrons. Each electron emitting photons, releases them with the same polarization, and at a specific frequency. Different electrons, in some strata of light admitting matter, can release photons with a different polarization, but each individual electron releases its photons with only one polarization. In a sense light is just a bit of gravity that has been labeled by its polarization and that can be detected based on the frequency of a quantion arriving with that specific polarization.



Once you accept this description of photons as a form of gravity, the next unifying step of including Magnetism is within reach. Ironically duality-physicists like Richard Feynman have used the term \93virtual photon\94 to describe the unknown force carrier in magnetism. Seems he couldn't see the Quantion Forest through the waving trees. Anyway, like photons, the force expressed in magnetism is just a variety of gravity, or more specifically a subtle variation in the active Universal Quantum Field.

Regarding Magnetism:

Let's start with what might be an agreeable statement for most physicist. Magnets are filters that produce, and are sensitive to, polarization. If we can agree on that then the only really important question to be answered is, what is getting polarized? In the context of this paper this question has two simple an answer for me to ask it without feeling silly. Obviously, it's the Gravitons/Quantions stupid. I would argue that one of the strongest proofs of the theory of gravity proposed in this paper, is the fact that it provides all the ingredients to solve the Mystery of Magnetism.

Once you place two magnets in the Active Universal Quantum Field diagramming what will happen is little more challenging than a grammar school exercise. First, there needs to be agreement on a general description of a polarizing filter. In the applicable circumstance of visible light, a polarizing filter would consist of a gradient of lines that can be oriented vertically, or horizontally, and can filter out different photons based on the orientation of the filter. Light polarizing filters also convert light in a range of polarization to the specific output polarization. The polarizing material of magnets works much the same way, in that it can ignore, absorb, or convert what travels through it.

Let's use the example of two magnets with opposite poles facing each other. The normal field pressure of regular gravity, surrounds them, and penetrates them, from all directions. There is a minor amount of gravitational attraction between them, but too little to be of any really relevant consequence. The important thing happening is that the magnetic poles are filtering the gravity quantions as they passes through them, greatly magnifying the regular material effect. Unlike regular matter, the magnetic polar filters are doing three important things regular matter doesn't do.

1. Magnetic polar filters double the absorption rate of one specific polarization.

2. Reduce to zero the absorption rate of the perpendicular polarization.

3. Convert, at a rate proportional to density, quantions of any polarization, to the specific polarization it absorbs with twice the effect.

In Figure 1 the effect is crudely diagrammed. The arrows labeled 2x represent the specific polarization the magnetic pole is twice as likely to absorb, and gain acceleration from. The arrows labeled 0 represent the specific polarization the magnetic pole will Not absorb. Notice: The balancing effect of these inverse values keeps the net gravitational impact neutral.

The arrow marked with the G represents the 98% of the gravity that is in some other polarization. It is the conversion of some portion of this gravity (of random polarization) to the 2x polarization (which is the zero polarization of the opposite pole) that gives magnetism it's greatly magnified effect over regular gravity. As opposite poles produce larger amounts of polarization that is invisible to the other pole, there is essentially created between the magnets an extra-low gravitational pressure zone, and the still absorbed, and now far greater, external gravity pushes the magnets together.

An example of two same poles facing each other demonstrates the opposite effect of creating essentially more gravitational pressure between the magnets. As both poles produce the same twice-as-strong polarization, both magnets are accelerated away from each other. It should be noted that the 2x gravity is just only One order of magnitude stronger than regular gravity.

As with gravity, magnetism is merely the byproduct of a created imbalance in field pressure. Much is made of the fact that these two forces have too substantial a difference in magnitude to be unified. I would counter that the same force is merely being imbalanced through different mechanisms, gravity creates imbalance through mass, while magnetism creates imbalance through composition. If you were to imagine two massive black holes separated by a few meters, with you stuck between them, do you think you would argue that gravity is a weak force. I think it will be understood as a kind of rule that as mass increases the relevance of composition decreases.

In Conclusion:

In this paper I have outlined a clear path to the unification of gravity, the electromagnetic spectrum, time dilation, and magnetism. The purpose is to merely establish a foundation for the larger claim that all energetic force is just a variant manifestation of the migration of elemental quanta. The truth to be revealed, and hopefully accepted, is that the universe is incomprehensibly thick with energy and that we only see, and function in, the minute portion of that universe labeled with specific polarization and frequencies.

It should be understood that this paper is only intended to be complete enough to justify fair testing and review. The author sincerely has no bad faith knowledge of any existing well proven fact of mathematics, or conceptual vision, destructive to the viability of this theoretical perspective. In fact, it has been the authors experience that this new model easily conforms to existing science, and provides solid answers too long asked questions.












To comment on this paper go to This video Other Papers:

On the subject of inertia and its mechanical source

On the subject of reasonable interpretation of the two slit experiment.



DraftScience
DraftScience
2 days ago
This video was a bit of a disappointment... I dislike you, but I really hate ken wheelers fake science. The last 3 minutes of your video should have been the first 3 minutes. More than 4 years ago I looked at Ferro fluid under a microscope and saw that it was doing the same thing iron filings would do in a thick suspension. That is, point directly to the poles of the magnet. You should have pointed out in the video that each LED creates one arc of light perpendicular to it. And the arcs are just precise angular reflections off pieces of the radial spokes coming out of the magnetic poles.

The Ferrocell is just a sideshow trick, and you should have just shown how it mechanically functions. Instead you droned on about a bunch of magnetic Theory that isn't much better than fractal woman's made up mush. Your model of magnetism is far from reasonable let alone complete. Virtual photons and waving fields isn't just a placeholder for the real truth, it's a silly one to boot.

If you don't mind me asking a couple of questions.

If a photons polarization is many hundreds of atoms wide how can it affect a single electron or how can a single electron produce a photon?

If I crash an object of 10m and 5v into a spring, and lock the spring at the greatest compression. Then replace the object with a 5m object and release the lock. Will the object leave with twice the velocity and twice as much kinetic (free) energy?
AB science
AB science
1 day ago
Meh... you and I are different. I like to explore a topic, explain where the mistakes are, and then try to use the mistakes to create an educational presentation. The mistakes aren’t important, what you can learn from it is.

In contrast; you just claim that stuff is wrong and use personal incredulity to justify your position. You then posit your own complete nonsense which has neither logical justification, nor experimental backing; it’s not even wrong.

The funny thing is that you are so obsessed with showing that people are wrong, that you miss the whole thing. You say that I should have pointed out a few things. If you were capable of paying attention, then you would have realised that I did point these things out.

The theory presented in the video is backed by an overwhelming body of evidence. Ironically, your comment is a piece of that evidence as you would not be able to post it without our understanding of the theory.

As for your questions, they are not even coherent. Please don’t take this as me being dismissive, patronising, or derisive: your questions demonstrate that you do not have even the most basic understanding of the subject matter. I cannot stress this enough: you do not understand what you are talking about!

How can you know a theory is wrong if you don’t understand it?
7
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 day ago (edited)
@AB science
In contrast; you just claim that stuff is wrong

First step in fixing what's broken is recognizing it's broken.

and use personal incredulity to justify your position.

That's just incredible mush

You then posit your own complete nonsense which has neither logical justification, nor experimental backing

Most of the conventional religion you call physics fits this description. The resolution from space is 400 times better, why hasn't the Eddington experiment been repeated from space where there is also no dependence on an eclipse.

it’s not even wrong.

Anyone can say that about anything

The funny thing is that you are so obsessed with showing that people are wrong

I believe facts should be added carefully... And paradoxes indicate bad addition.

that you miss the whole thing.

I believe you're doing that

You say that I should have pointed out a few things.

I'm suggesting your video would have been more persuasive if it contained less theoretical jargon and more plain facts.

If you were capable of paying attention

More mushy accusations that have nothing to do with the reality.

then you would have realised that I did point these things out.

As I stated, the last three or four minutes with a few additions would have been a much better video.

The theory presented in the video is backed by an overwhelming body of evidence.

Too bad none of the evidence is physical... or real. You should learn the difference between real lines of force and arbitrary field lines.

Ironically, your comment is a piece of that evidence as you would not be able to post it without our understanding of the theory.

That Theory is as under evidenced and unproven as the rest of your physics.

As for your questions, they are not even coherent.

Monstrous evasion and copout

Please don’t take this as me being dismissive, patronising, or derisive

No worries I already have a pretty low opinion of your character.

your questions demonstrate that you do not have even the most basic understanding of the subject matter.

I think a classroom of ten-year-olds could understand the questions, and I bet they would like to hear the answer.

I cannot stress this enough

You don't spell evade s-t-r-e-s-s

you do not understand what you are talking about!

I think you do understand what you're evading.

How can you know a theory is wrong if you don’t understand it?

The history of the kinetic energy Theory is as bad as Ken wheeler physics... It is as mushy as the clay used in the quote-mined experiments. It's totem pole science.
3
Jehannum
Jehannum
1 day ago
@DraftScience You fail to realise that you are just Ken Wheeler v2.0
5
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 day ago
@Jehannum Unlike Ken wheeler i'm willing to debate anyone regarding the credibility of the arguments I have made. Very much unlike Ken wheeler i'm willing to pay a science channel with more than a hundred thousand subscribers $2,000 to attempt to debunk my physics.

Like Ken wheeler your science hides from interrogation... Ask a simple question get gibberish and evasion.
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
1 day ago
@DraftScience Unlike Ken wheeler i'm willing to debate anyone regarding the credibility of the arguments I have made Debate? That's your avenue to credibility on topics of science? I'm fairly certain I could probably win a debate with a 5 year old that 2+2 is not actually equal to 4, but would that change the validity of simple math? If you're keen on being treated like a rational human regarding science I have a suggestion. Maybe play by the same rules as rest of the world and rely on evidence instead of just incredulity. Or just keep crying on the internet that everyone doesn't want to play games with you and see how that goes.
3
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 day ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime That's your avenue to credibility on topics of science?

Credibility is best understood through testing... If I tested you on the history of the kinetic energy formula what kind of grade do you expect you could master?

I'm fairly certain I could probably win a debate with a 5 year old that 2+2 is not actually equal to 4

An interesting experiment... What argument would you use?

but would that change the validity of simple math?

There are simpler ways to call someone a fool... The cool thing is proving it.

If you're keen on being treated like a rational human regarding science

I'm keen on having a few simple, fair, questions answered.

I have a suggestion.

how very exciting for you.

Maybe play by the same rules as rest of the world

Newsflash liars and cheaters Run the World.

and rely on evidence instead of just incredulity.

Too bad you don't take your own advice.

Or just keep crying

Your comments are the ones that seem kind of wet and Snotty.

...on the internet that everyone doesn't want to play games with you and see how that goes.

I didn't complain anywhere in this comment... I asked some simple questions and got evasion as an answer... Those are the facts.
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
1 day ago
@DraftScience Credibility is best understood through testing Is that from a fortune cookie? To be credible you need to be proven correct and you seem to think you can do that via debate. It's laughable if it wasn't so childish.

An interesting experiment... What argument would you use? It's a debate so what does it matter what argument I used? Are you not aware that debates are more about charisma and persuasion? I think you are which is why you immediately asked for a debate. It's a common tactic with other such reliable sources as flat Earthers.

There are simpler ways to call someone a fool... The cool thing is proving it. That's another cute saying. So what's your excuse for NOT proving others wrong with evidence and instead asking for debate?

Newsflash liars and cheaters Run the World Aha, there's the conspiracy woo. It's not you that's wrong, it's the world that's against you as the only rational voice of truth . This is also very much like a flat Earth argument tactic. You could provide proof but the world is against you.

I didn't complain anywhere in this comment Also another common trait of the conspiracy minded and bottom run flat Earthers, you don't seem to know what you even write/say. Allow me to quote before this is deleted or edited.

This video was a bit of a disappointment... I dislike you This isn't a complaint in your world? Wait let me guess the excuse. Either I'm being too critical and nit picky or I have zero clue how language works and you can't be bothered.

To recap, debate appears to be the fuel for the conspiracy weak minded woo peddlers these days. It can't be that you're wrong, it's the world. And it's not that you can't provide evidence, it's just that the world calls your evidence wrong. If only you had a stage where you could maybe talk your way into persuading an audience instead of having to prove your case. Then you're sure the world would see that it was actually you that was correct and the world that has faulty evidence.

In case you hadn't noticed your cries are very familiar to those who cry about Earth being flat. Such great company you keep. Congrats.
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 day ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Is that from a fortune cookie?

So you don't think testing, is a good way of testing credibility?

To be credible you need to be proven correct

Unfortunately No one's ever proven what proven means... Can we agree on a reasonable standard?


and you seem to think you can do that via debate.

A logical proof, is a thing, look it up ... But truth is I advocate for big piles of physical evidence.


It's laughable if it wasn't so childish.

Exactly my opinion of your conduct... But you're also just a ridiculous liar.

It's a debate so what does it matter what argument I used?

You're saying you can convince a 5 year old that 2 + 2 isn't fore. I'm honestly curious what kind of preposterous lie you're going to use.

Are you not aware that debates are more about charisma and persuasion?

I'm aware that arguments among adults should be honest and informed.

I think you are which is why you immediately asked for a debate.

Argument is an essential brain function... No advancement is possible without it.

It's a common tactic with other such reliable sources as flat Earthers.

I haven't seen too many flat earthers willing to be publicly interrogated... Like physicist, they do a lot of incredible talking, and very little credible walking/debating,

That's another cute saying.

It's just a fact that you should be willing to prove your assertions.

So what's your excuse for NOT proving others wrong with evidence

I have provided physical evidence for things like conservation of momentum your side hasn't provided any counter-evidence for your 300 year-old Theory. I stated earlier some theories will have to be argued as models. The test is what model answers more questions and answers them more completely.

and instead asking for debate?

There is no instead. I like physical evidence and I like arguments and I am willing to pay to have both created.

Aha, there's the conspiracy woo.

If you think saying there are too many liars in the world amounts to conspiracy talk then you're proving your definitions/judgments have no credibility.

It's not you that's wrong, it's the world that's against you

Clearly the atmosphere is adversarial and just as clear is your cowardice.

as the only rational voice of truth

Just as yours is the only right religion.

This is also very much like a flat Earth argument tactic.

My tactic is more evidence and more arguments your tactic is insults and running away.

You could provide proof but the world is against you.

I can't prove your physics a grossly inferior model

Also another common trait of the conspiracy minded and bottom run flat Earthers

More of you caught lying about what I've spent the last ten years doing.

you don't seem to know what you even write/say.

I'd say you don't speak any useful language... Just off subject Tollie mush

Allow me to quote before this is deleted or edited.

Like my videos I don't delete my comments.

This isn't a complaint in your world?

So honestly saying you're disappointed is your definition of complaining?

Wait let me guess the excuse.

I don't have to wait to guess your guess will suck.

Either I'm being too critical and nit picky

No your distractingly irrelevant, plainly rude, and a coward.

or I have zero clue how language works and you can't be bothered.

Another accurate prediction for my side

To recap, debate appears to be the fuel for the conspiracy weak minded woo peddlers these days.

Be sure to print that in big yellow letters on your big coward flag

It can't be that you're wrong

You certainly haven't proven it with any reasonable argumentation.

it's the world.

The world runs on BS and you're clearly part of that problem.

And it's not that you can't provide evidence

I have provided physical evidence... And like Einstein I provided some thought experiments. You have reasonably replied to neither.

it's just that the world calls your evidence wrong.

The world that hasn't heard both sides of the story... A real trial hasn't even started

If only you had a stage where you could maybe talk your way into persuading an audience instead of having to prove your case.

Yours is the side running from a fair trial

Then you're sure the world would see that it was actually you that was correct and the world that has faulty evidence.

Does the world believe in the Multiverse or Copenhagen?

In case you hadn't noticed your cries are very familiar to those who cry about Earth being flat.

More evidence you have no regard for facts. Better comparison to a flat earther than the religious nuts you're behaving like.

Such great company you keep. Congrats.

We'll see what's written on Whose tombstone... I think you're forever name will be BelligerentlyStupid TruthHater
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
1 day ago
@DraftScience So you don't think testing, is a good way of testing credibility? I think it's a meaningless statement made even more redundant when put the way you just did.

Unfortunately No one's ever proven what proven means... Can we agree on a reasonable standard? And more fortune cookie word salad. This is usually what people say when they can't get others to believe they are correct. It's also probably why you believe in debate.

A logical proof, is a thing, look it up ... But truth is I advocate for big piles of physical evidence. A logical proof is a thing, but the word proven isn't. Gotcha.

Exactly my opinion of your conduct... But you're also just a ridiculous liar. Liar? That's a new one. Not sure what I could even be accused of lying about.

You're saying you can convince a 5 year old that 2 + 2 isn't fore. I'm honestly curious what kind of preposterous lie you're going to use.Technically it's four but the point, which appears lost on you, is the value of debate over evidence. If you are correct you shouldn't need nor want a debate. Those who crave debate appear to be the ones who can't get the world to believe them because they're inherently wrong about something.

I'm aware that arguments among adults should be honest and informed. Why argue in the first place? Did you argue you way to learn simple math?

Argument is an essential brain function... No advancement is possible without it.An essential brain function? That's a new one. I've heard that doing crosswords helps promote good brain health but never arguments. If I care to change my career and get into medical science, do I need to advance my knowledge via argument?

I haven't seen too many flat earthers willing to be publicly interrogated... Like physicist, they do a lot of incredible talking, and very little credible walking/debating, Then you haven't looked much.

It's just a fact that you should be willing to prove your assertions.But you just said no one has proven what proven means. And actually why are you agreeing with me? My point was all you need to do is prove your assertations and a debate wasn't needed at all. You don't need an audience to prove your assertations, just your evidence.

I have provided physical evidence for things like conservation of momentum your side hasn't provided any counter-evidence for your 300 year-old Theory. I stated earlier some theories will have to be argued as models. The test is what model answers more questions and answers them more completely. No counter-evidence? Or only evidence that you dismiss via incredulity? But I'm willing to read your evidence? Where I can find it published outside of YouTube video?

There is no instead. I like physical evidence and I like arguments and I am willing to pay to have both created. My point was you don't need debate if you have evidence. As stated many times already the only ones who seem to demand debates are those whose evidence isn't accepted and thus feel slighted by some kind of bias or conspiracy. Thus far you haven't given me any reason to doubt that you fit this categorization.

If you think saying there are too many liars in the world amounts to conspiracy talk then you're proving your definitions/judgments have no credibility. If you're thinking that crying about the world being against you doesn't count as paranoid woo then you're not very self aware.

Clearly the atmosphere is adversarial and just as clear is your cowardice. Now I'm a coward and liar? This is very new and different.

Just as yours is the only right religion. Wow, you are hitting all the flat Earth hits now.

My tactic is more evidence and more arguments your tactic is insults and running away. Again, the entire point is if you have evidence you don't need debate. You seem to think that your evidence is valid and it's just that the world is against you so debate is needed. Also, not sure what counts as an insult or running away either.

I can't prove your physics a grossly inferior model Okay. Not sure what this means exactly. Maybe you meant to say you can prove that physics is inferior. But then we're back to the confusing previous point about how proven has never been proven or whatever that was supposed to mean.

More of you caught lying about what I've spent the last ten years doing. Again, my point was that debate is often the cry of those who can't prove their case. And that this happens often with those who think they are smarter than the rest of the world and/or the world is against them. Thus far this describes you.

Even I'm getting tired of this. Let's cut some and jump a bit.

No your distractingly irrelevant, plainly rude, and a coward. It's strange I'm the rude one when it's you who seems to feel no shame in not only calling out the maker of the video but also making broad claims about basically the entire scientific world. And coward still puzzles me as I'm not sure what I'm expected to do in a YouTube comment section to validate my bravery, nor why it's relevant.

The world runs on BS and you're clearly part of that problem. It's always nice to have my assumptions confirmed. Thanks for admitting that you do find the problem is the world and not you. I was going to refrain from the term delusional narcissist as you seemed to think I've already insulted you but in this case the term just appears to be fit.
1
AB science
AB science
1 day ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime You should watch some of DraftScience's content. His latest is a wonderful demonstration of the level of misunderstanding that you are dealing with. It is astonishing how someone has such little understanding of basic mechanics whilst being convinced that they have a better understanding of physics than the entire scientific community. You draw comparisons with flat earthers, but I think that is unfair on the flat earthers. You can easily see how, and why, flerfs misunderstand the theory; with draftscience, it takes a lot of effort to figure out how a person can be so mistaken and confused about a subject.
2
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 day ago (edited)
@NinjaMonkeyPrime So you don't think testing, is a good way of testing credibility? I think it's a meaningless statement made even more redundant when put the way you just did.

So you don't think testing is a good way of assessing credibility? If I test your knowledge of the double slit pattern how do you think you will do?



Unfortunately No one's ever proven what proven means... Can we agree on a reasonable standard? And more fortune cookie word salad. This is usually what people say when they can't get others to believe they are correct. It's also probably why you believe in debate.

So you know what proof is but you can't let any of us in on it huh

A logical proof, is a thing, look it up ... But truth is I advocate for big piles of physical evidence. A logical proof is a thing, but the word proven isn't. Gotcha.

So you won't discuss the standards of proof you just know it when YOU see it.

Exactly my opinion of your conduct... But you're also just a ridiculous liar. Liar? That's a new one. Not sure what I could even be accused of lying about.

You lied about me not producing evidence and lied about the detail and comprehensiveness of the arguments I have made. It is also a lie not to admit that you're a mush talking coward.

You're saying you can convince a 5 year old that 2 + 2 isn't fore. I'm honestly curious what kind of preposterous lie you're going to use. Technically it's four but the point, which appears lost on you, is the value of debate over evidence. If you are correct you shouldn't need nor want a debate. Those who crave debate appear to be the ones who can't get the world to believe them because they're inherently wrong about something.

There's no evidence of a photon waving yet you keep waving that argument in front of everyone.


I'm aware that arguments among adults should be honest and informed. Why argue in the first place? Did you argue you way to learn simple math?

The fact that you don't understand the vital importance of argument in the progress of understanding I will leave to the reader to contemplate

Argument is an essential brain function... No advancement is possible without it. An essential brain function? That's a new one. I've heard that doing crosswords helps promote good brain health but never arguments. If I care to change my career and get into medical science, do I need to advance my knowledge via argument?

Einstein's book is short but it's full of arguments retard

I haven't seen too many flat earthers willing to be publicly interrogated... Like physicist, they do a lot of incredible talking, and very little credible walking/debating, Then you haven't looked much.

How about a link

It's just a fact that you should be willing to prove your assertions. But you just said no one has proven what proven means. And actually why are you agreeing with me? My point was all you need to do is prove your assertations and a debate wasn't needed at all. You don't need an audience to prove your assertations, just your evidence.

Where's your evidence? You can't even answer simple questions. You're making bold assertions and you have mush for evidence. That's the fact you haven't proven wrong.


I have provided physical evidence for things like conservation of momentum your side hasn't provided any counter-evidence for your 300 year-old Theory. I stated earlier some theories will have to be argued as models. The test is what model answers more questions and answers them more completely. No counter-evidence? Or only evidence that you dismiss via incredulity? But I'm willing to read your evidence? Where I can find it published outside of YouTube video?

There are three videos on my website that are less than 15 minutes long on the subjects of photons energy and gravity. No one has yet provided a single piece of evidence or argument demonstrating anything in those videos to be incorrect.

There is no instead. I like physical evidence and I like arguments and I am willing to pay to have both created. My point was you don't need debate if you have evidence.

Much of physics requires new facts to be inferred not directly observed ...you are amazingly ignorant

As stated many times already the only ones who seem to demand debates are those whose evidence isn't accepted and thus feel slighted by some kind of bias or conspiracy. Thus far you haven't given me any reason to doubt that you fit this categorization.

I Don't Think You're vulnerable to good reasoning.

If you think saying there are too many liars in the world amounts to conspiracy talk then you're proving your definitions/judgments have no credibility. If you're thinking that crying about the world being against you doesn't count as paranoid woo then you're not very self aware.

That's why you are a liar... I never claimed the world to be against me, what I have proven by offering $2,000 for 15 minutes of airtime is that physicists are cowards.

Clearly the atmosphere is adversarial and just as clear is your cowardice. Now I'm a coward and liar? This is very new and different.

You're even afraid of the word debate

Just as yours is the only right religion. Wow, you are hitting all the flat Earth hits now.

Living Force was invented as a defense of a religious perspective.

My tactic is more evidence and more arguments your tactic is insults and running away. Again, the entire point is if you have evidence you don't need debate.

This in defense of a science that still hasn't redone the Eddington experiment with comparable or superior technology

You seem to think that your evidence is valid and it's just that the world is against you so debate is needed.

All great scientist argued in defense of their great science.

Also, not sure what counts as an insult or running away either.

You don't seem to understand a lot of words

I can't prove your physics a grossly inferior mode Okay. Not sure what this means exactly. Maybe you meant to say you can prove that physics is inferior. But then we're back to the confusing previous point about how proven has never been proven or whatever that was supposed to mean.

I plainly suggested humans have to agree on standards of proof... You won't even argue it


More of you caught lying about what I've spent the last ten years doing. Again, my point was that debate is often the cry of those who can't prove their case. And that this happens often with those who think they are smarter than the rest of the world and/or the world is against them. Thus far this describes you.

What sets me apart is all of the kings scientist and all the king's trolls haven't refuted any of my major points.

Even I'm getting tired of this. Let's cut some and jump a bit.

Too bad you can't just jump to the questions and answer them

No your distractingly irrelevant, plainly rude, and a coward. It's strange I'm the rude one when it's you who seems to feel no shame in not only calling out the maker of the video but also making broad claims about basically the entire scientific world. And coward still puzzles me as I'm not sure what I'm expected to do in a YouTube comment section to validate my bravery, nor why it's relevant.

Bravely answer the simple questions.

The world runs on BS and you're clearly part of that problem. It's always nice to have my assumptions confirmed. Thanks for admitting that you do find the problem is the world and not you. I was going to refrain from the term delusional narcissist as you seemed to think I've already insulted you but in this case the term just appears to be fit.

I'm a narcissist for good reason ... With you as evidence of the competition how could I be otherwise.
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 day ago
@AB science If you have a winning argument just answer the questions some of them are yes or no.

Here's a couple more:

If I shoot two objects with opposite velocity to Mass ratios into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact?


If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime away from me at 1000mph.? If so isn't this proof against the kinetic energy formula?
AB science
AB science
1 day ago
Buddy, my position has not changed: I'm happy to answer questions, provided that they are sensible. Your questions are not.

But fuck it, I've got a bit of time to kill.

Your first question

What do you mean with opposite velocity to mass ratio ? With opposite, do you mean v/m being the opposite of m/v? or do you mean that v/m is the opposite of -v/m? I honestly do not know what the hell you mean. Perhaps you should try more concrete examples with well defined quantities. ie. if I shoot two objects with identical mass in opposite directions... Or whatever. Even better, use that glorious website of yours to post a simple diagram describing the problem.

If I let the objects fall, on and identical spring... The problem here is that the previous part of the question is nonsensical.

Basically, If you want an answer to your question, construct it in a sensible way. You should perhaps watch some lectures on mechanics so you know how to formulate the question. And I mean, really watch, take it in, and learn! Even if you don't believe the theory, take some time to truly learn it! There is no sense in trying to disprove a theory if you don't understand the theory in the first place. The best that you can reasonably hope for is that you are disproving a strawman of the theory. (which is exactly what you are doing on your channel, your latest video makes it very clear that you do not understand any of the theory)

your second question

Again, this is not a sensible question! Firstly, thrust is not really a good way of looking at the situation, secondly, how does this show the definition of kinetic energy to be incorrect?

I find that I am repeating myself once again: Your questions show that you do not posess even the most basic understanding of the subject matter. I don't like you, but that doesn't mean that I am not insincere when I tell you that you should really spend some time learning entry level physics and I think that you would benefit. I'm not dismissing you, making fun of you, or avoiding you when I say that your lack of understanding is so profound that you are incapable of knowing whether your questions make sense or not. It is clear that you don't understand the basic quantities pertinent to the subject, you don't understand the relationship between the quantities, and you definitely don't understand the fundamental laws.
2
Robert Ritchie
Robert Ritchie
1 day ago
@AB science How dare you steal Draftscience's dreams. He is the most intelligent Human being ever to have existed. Here are some of his discoveries to prove it.
1. Photons actually have mass.
2. Magnetic monopoles.
3. Kinetic energy is wrong.
4. The Earth needs to be destroyed to end all our suffering.

He should be awarded the Nobel prize for physics and also the Nobel prize for peace.

The above statements are constructed utilizing Draftscience's own customized logical rationalization and sophistry.
1
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
1 day ago
@AB science You should watch some of DraftScience's content I can't promise that I will do that. I'm actually trying to cut back on the drinking and from what I can see the videos would tempt me to drink more.
1
DraftScience
DraftScience
23 hours ago (edited)
@AB science Buddy, my position has not changed: I'm happy to answer questions, provided that they are sensible. Your questions are not.

Dude, I'm always grateful for any time you'll spend discussing science... But the patronizing insults are just a waste of everyone's time.


But fuck it, I've got a bit of time to kill.

Maybe you should use it before you kill it

Your first question

What do you mean with opposite velocity to mass ratio ?

I've heard more than one physics Professor use the phrase... I didn't invent it... It's like 10 Mass,5 velocity vs 5 Mass 10 velocity

With opposite, do you mean v/m being the opposite of m/v? or do you mean that v/m is the opposite of -v/m?

The idea of a minus velocity is another one of your physics concepts I don't think much of

I honestly do not know what the hell you mean.

I honestly find that incredible

Perhaps you should try more concrete examples with well defined quantities. ie. if I shoot two objects with identical mass in opposite directions... Or whatever. Even better, use that glorious website of yours to post a simple diagram describing the problem.

Well I actually do have the questions on the website and I do illustrate one of them in the 10-minute video on energy i'm offering a popular Science Channel $2,000 to play. The Questions were intended to be as concise as possible because folks on your side have such short attention spans


If I let the objects fall, on and identical spring... The problem here is that the previous part of the question is nonsensical.

You shoot the two objects into gravity with the same force and the same momentum ie: Inverse velocity to mass ratios ie: One weighs twice as much as the other, one will leave going twice as fast as the other. Your kinetic energy Theory says at launch one object will have twice as much kinetic energy as the other. How is that possible if they land with the same momentum/force.

Basically, If you want an answer to your question, construct it in a sensible way.

You're the first person who has claimed they couldn't understand the question

You should perhaps watch some lectures on mechanics so you know how to formulate the question.

I've played 50 of Professor lewin's complete videos in my videos

And I mean, really watch, take it in, and learn!*

So much for you staying on the subject

Even if you don't believe the theory, take some time to truly learn it!

I bet I would score much higher than you on a kinetic energy living Force history test

There is no sense in trying to disprove a theory if you don't understand the theory in the first place.

More useless evasion

The best that you can reasonably hope for is that you are disproving a strawman of the theory.

You should say clay man it would be so ironically funny


(which is exactly what you are doing on your channel, your latest video makes it very clear that you do not understand any of the theory)

Is true I don't understand how a dime going 1000 miles an hour has any more capacity to move atoms in the universe then two kilograms moving 1 mile an hour. Momentum is all there is and it's all either of them have.


your second question

Again, this is not a sensible question! Firstly, thrust is not really a good way of looking at the situation,

Trust gets to the elemental function ... You move by giving momentum away

secondly, how does this show the definition of kinetic energy to be incorrect?

your theorys says it takes 2000 joules to launch the dime but only 2 to send the 2 kilograms on its way. That crappy physics won't land you on the moon

I find that I am repeating myself once again:

Just gratuitously gratuitous insult after useless insult.

Your questions show that you do not posess even the most basic understanding of the subject matter.

Yet no one can offer a reasonable explanation for why there's no paradox

I don't like you, but that doesn't mean that I am not insincere when I tell you that you should really spend some time learning entry level physics and I think that you would benefit.

I could give you lots of Life advice... Ways to build your character... But I'd rather stick to physics

I'm not dismissing you, making fun of you, or avoiding you when I say that your lack of understanding is so profound that you are incapable of knowing whether your questions make sense or not.

All the words you've wasted in this conversation just repeating your low opinion of my understanding. I'm unimpressed by the evidence you presented as it's just you say so mush

It is clear that you don't understand the basic quantities pertinent to the subject, you don't understand the relationship between the quantities,

More useless mush

and you definitely don't understand the fundamental laws.

You don't understand the fundamental laws of logic... Like the law of noncontradiction ie No paradoxes
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
23 hours ago
​ @DraftScience So you don't think testing is a good way of assessing credibility? If I test your knowledge of the double slit pattern how do you think you will do? Do you just assume words have the meaning you wish them to or that readers understand your context? In this case credibility appears to imply proof of knowledge but that could also be done via credentials like from an educational institution which I assume you will disagree with based on your previous comments. Either way all you're doing is creating a catch phrase definition to attempt to derive some meaningless points while avoiding the topic.

So you know what proof is but you can't let any of us in on it huh Proof is a word that has a very easy to understand definition. You even use it when you're not trying to argue that it's undefined. Are you not aware of your own comments?

So you won't discuss the standards of proof you just know it when YOU see it. I'm not the one who seems confused about what proof means.

You lied about me not producing evidence and lied about the detail and comprehensiveness of the arguments I have made. It is also a lie not to admit that you're a mush talking coward. Wow bro, maybe either step up or step down the meds. What evidence was I supposed to produce in a discussion about how debate is what the weak minded cling to who can't prove their woo?

There's no evidence of a photon waving yet you keep waving that argument in front of everyone. There's no evidence that debate is just a play for those who lack evidence? Did you debate simple math or did you learn it?

The fact that you don't understand the vital importance of argument in the progress of understanding I will leave to the reader to contemplate You can also tell the reader why you didn't answer the question. Did you argue basic math or did you learn it? Debate are argument are the tools for those who aren't supported by evidence. Thus far you're proving me correct on this over and over again.

Einstein's book is short but it's full of arguments retard Wow. I've seen some insults in my day but not even flat Earthers are so uncouth as to use that word. Regardless, what's in Einstein's book has no relevance on your assertation that argument is an essential brain function. Do I need to cite every text book that does not include arguments to counter your point or are you capable of admitting to being wrong at least once?

How about a link You want a link that shows that flat Earthers ask for debates? To coin another phrase from the flat Earthers, do your own research . This channel has videos on the topic. If you can't find a moron who blurts out debate Eric Dubay you coward you should not have to look much further until you do.

Where's your evidence? You can't even answer simple questions. You're making bold assertions and you have mush for evidence. That's the fact you haven't proven wrong. This is one of the more confusing responses in a sea of confusing responses. You're asking me for my evidence that if you prove your assertations a debate isn't needed. Does that make sense to you?

There are three videos on my website that are less than 15 minutes long on the subjects of photons energy and gravity. No one has yet provided a single piece of evidence or argument demonstrating anything in those videos to be incorrect. Sigh, of course. This is what I get when I ask for something published and not on YouTube. I'm honestly surprised that I actually thought you might provide something.

Much of physics requires new facts to be inferred not directly observed ...you are amazingly ignorant For some reason this is in response to saying that debate is not needed when there is evidence. I'm not sure your understanding of the word facts is what the rest of the world agrees to either.

I Don't Think You're vulnerable to good reasoning. Ignoring the odd use of capitals, I'm confused by your use of the word vulnerable but maybe there's a language issue. But this is another childish response to the point that debate is the crutch used by those who cannot prove their case. It's the same point you keep insulting me about but cannot refute.

That's why you are a liar... I never claimed the world to be against me, what I have proven by offering $2,000 for 15 minutes of airtime is that physicists are cowards. Your response to my question about your proof not being recognized was something about the world being filled with liars.

You're even afraid of the word debate I'm a coward for being afraid of a word debate, while I'm replying to your comments. This makes sense to you?

This in defense of a science that still hasn't redone the Eddington experiment with comparable or superior technology And there's more woo conspiracy talk. How shocking. Not to be a broken record, but you're repeating the flat Earth nonsense again. It sounds so much like when they cry why can't we have a camera on the moon showing Earth argument. Not only are you hitting on incredulity on the test results, but you're also implying that there's something nefarious going on to hide something. It's actually a double flat Earth meme since you're hitting on some implied actual benefit to them keeping that experiment result around. I'm reminded of the Professor Dave video on conspiracy theory and flat Earth and the line about how we all have sex parties by keeping the shape of the Earth a secret.

And I'm bored now so I'm going to the best part.

I'm a narcissist for good reason ... With you as evidence of the competition how could I be otherwise. This is where I question your understanding of words. Let me help with what you just admitted by a copy and paste from one definition.

A disorder in which a person has an inflated sense of self-importance.

This seems to be just another indication of where you really have a poor understanding of reality. You keep claiming to be understand better than others but then display how you lack understanding of even basic terms. If you want to claim to be superior to some of the greatest minds of humanity, something I do not claim btw, then maybe you should at least realize it's never to admit to being a narcissist.
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
23 hours ago
@DraftScience I saved this quote from someone else but it definitely applies to you. My guess is you're picking #1 and never bothering with anything else. Too bad you'd be wrong.

If you disagree with Science there are 3 possibilities (stolen from @potholer54):

1) You are smarter than thousands of scientists and have discovered something new.

2) Millions of teachers, scientists, researchers, NASA, illuminati and educated people are in on a conspiracy to cover the truth.

3) The scientist knows something you don't know and you can learn.



Odds are 3) is the right one.
DraftScience
DraftScience
21 hours ago (edited)
@NinjaMonkeyPrime ...avoiding the topic.

The topic is in the questions I have asked that you and ab haven't answered. You are the one wasting time on credentials and Authority.

Proof is a word that has a very easy to understand definition.

LOL

You even use it when you're not trying to argue that it's undefined. Are you not aware of your own comments?

Incomprehensible and no doubt irrelevant

I'm not the one who seems confused about what proof means.

You seem to not understand what a disagreement is. You asserting without argument is not proving

Wow bro, maybe either step up or step down the meds.

Dude this is so unoriginal you need to step up the gray matter

What evidence was I supposed to produce in a discussion about how debate is what the weak minded cling to who can't prove their woo?

Show me one of Einstein's papers where he wasn't making an argument in debate Form.

There's no evidence that debate is just a play for those who lack evidence? Did you debate simple math or did you learn it?

Young's Math Makes plainly wrong predictions

You can also tell the reader why you didn't answer the question. Did you argue basic math or did you learn it?

Learning math are how to play the piano has nothing to do with how theoretical physics derives truth//facts


Thus far you're proving me correct on this over and over again.

Time will tell what you've proven yourself to be


Einstein's book is short but it's full of arguments retard Wow. I've seen some insults in my day but not even flat Earthers are so uncouth as to use that word.

So we can add silly political correctness to your time wasting


Regardless, what's in Einstein's book has no relevance on your assertation that argument is an essential brain function.

I suppose I should have said modern brain function... And Einstein's book does demonstrate that complex evidence must be contextualize through argument


Do I need to cite every text book that does not include arguments to counter your point or are you capable of admitting to being wrong at least once?

Maybe just site 1 textbook regarding elemental/theoretical physics



How about a link You want a link that shows that flat Earthers ask for debates? To coin another phrase from the flat Earthers, do your own research .

More of you sounding just like a flat earther

This channel has videos on the topic. If you can't find a moron who blurts out debate Eric Dubay you coward you should not have to look much further until you do.

You made the claim you should be able to provide the evidence

Where's your evidence? You can't even answer simple questions. You're making bold assertions and you have mush for evidence. That's the fact you haven't proven wrong. This is one of the more confusing responses in a sea of confusing responses.

You seem confused by anything relevant do the actual subject


You're asking me for my evidence that if you prove your assertations a debate isn't needed. Does that make sense to you?

My assertion is You're making bold assertions and you have mush for evidence.


There are three videos on my website that are less than 15 minutes long on the subjects of photons energy and gravity. No one has yet provided a single piece of evidence or argument demonstrating anything in those videos to be incorrect. Sigh, of course. This is what I get when I ask for something published and not on YouTube.

In the very video this comment is on.... It was pointed out publication isn't all it should be.. I present my content in video form I think it's a much Superior medium.

I'm honestly surprised that I actually thought you might provide something.

So you will debunk Flat Earth arguments that aren't published yet you can't handle one of my 10 or 15 minute presentation of evidence/arguments



Much of physics requires new facts to be inferred not directly observed ...you are amazingly ignorant For some reason this is in response to saying that debate is not needed when there is evidence. I'm not sure your understanding of the word facts is what the rest of the world agrees to either.

You seem to have a world delusion... I'm fairly certain that much of the world would like you.


I Don't Think You're vulnerable to good reasoning. Ignoring the odd use of capitals, I'm confused by your use of the word vulnerable but maybe there's a language issue. But this is another childish response to the point that debate is the crutch used by those who cannot prove their case. It's the same point you keep insulting me about but cannot refute.

Like Proof refute is in the eye of the beholder... I really don't care to debate the usefulness of debating... I see it is essential you see it is useless. I think I've defended its necessity I don't think you have defended how the world could function without it.



That's why you are a liar... I never claimed the world to be against me, what I have proven by offering $2,000 for 15 minutes of airtime is that physicists are cowards. Your response to my question about your proof not being recognized was something about the world being filled with liars.

Of course that's a lie



You're even afraid of the word debate I'm a coward for being afraid of a word debate, while I'm replying to your comments. This makes sense to you?

You're afraid of the scientific debate and clearly obsessed with changing the subject

This in defense of a science that still hasn't redone the Eddington experiment with comparable or superior technology And there's more woo conspiracy talk. How shocking.

Another obvious evasion... How surprising.

Not to be a broken record, but you're repeating the flat Earth nonsense again.

Your overtly lying again

It sounds so much like when they cry why can't we have a camera on the moon showing Earth argument.

More obvious evasion

Not only are you hitting on incredulity on the test results, but you're also implying that there's something nefarious going on to hide something.

Another silly lie.... The theory is you're really stupid and dishonest.


It's actually a double flat Earth meme since you're hitting on some implied actual benefit to them keeping that experiment result around. I'm reminded of the Professor Dave video on conspiracy theory and flat Earth and the line about how we all have sex parties by keeping the shape of the Earth a secret.

You really have shown no evidence of any fair comparison between me and a flat earther

And I'm bored now so I'm going to the best part.

You should be ashamed


I'm a narcissist for good reason ... With you as evidence of the competition how could I be otherwise. This is where I question your understanding of words. Let me help with what you just admitted by a copy and paste from one definition.

A disorder in which a person has an inflated sense of self-importance.

Pasting dictionary definitions I bet flat-earthers do that. Regardless, inflated or not, I do think I'm functioning much better than you


This seems to be just another indication of where you really have a poor understanding of reality.
>And I am betting you will wear that label in the end


You keep claiming to be understand better than others but then display how you lack understanding of even basic terms. If you want to claim to be superior to some of the greatest minds of humanity,

You're the one kicking Newton in the face

something I do not claim btw, then maybe you should at least realize it's never to admit to being a narcissist.

Why? I'm sure all the great physicist of History had a few delusions. You seem to have a delusion that irrelevancy is relevancy
DraftScience
DraftScience
21 hours ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime The ash heap of History already has a reservation for either bent space or quantum mechanics... theyy are conflicting theories.. The truth is both of them are bad guesses that were two under evidenced to be established as fact
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
11 hours ago
@DraftScience The topic is in the questions I have asked that you and ab haven't answered. You are the one wasting time on credentials and Authority. So not only do you appear to not understand science, you don't seem to grasp how conversations work. Sorry but my topic is something that can only be determined by me. You do not get to tell me what my topic is in a discussion. Feel free to bring up your own topic and attempt to get me to discuss it, but you do not in fact get to dictate what my topic is in a conversation.

What is really disturbing is how you actually think it's me who is wasting time on credentials and authority. I assume you don't recall it's you who started it and keeps it going. I should know this since, as stated before, since I know what my topic has always been and it had nothing to do with that.

My topic has always been and always will be about how debate is the cry of those who cannot prove their case with evidence. I will add to this point that it also seems to be linked to paranoia and delusions of grandeur as you seem to think, just like the flat Earthers, that you are smarter than the entire world and if not for the nefarious them you would be able to expose them and their evil ways. So debate ends up the cry of not only those who cannot provide evidence, but also those who feel the world is against them and they are the only true genius. If I were to guess it does make sense from a psychology perspective. If you feel as if you're a genius, and the world is against you, probably the most ideal situation is to have a debate stage with an audience that is forced to listen to you. My guess is that sounds like heaven on Earth to the delusional paranoid who desperately needs to be recognized. As stated many times before, debate is the tool that you can only fall back to when you lack evidence. Since you cannot prove that you're correct, a desperate person wants to try and convince everything they are correct. If it wasn't so sad it would be amusing. You can't give a formula or write a paper that shows you're correct, so instead you want to talk someone's ear off until you hope the verbal assault will rub off and make them so tired they will give up and agree.

In the end it is my fault for giving you more credit than a flat Earther. In some ways you're actually worse as you don't even seem aware of your own words or meaning all the while acting as if you are the most misunderstood genius the world has seen. While you're chasing the windmills try and remember that the odds are very likely it's not the world that's wrong, but you. And no, a debate won't fix that, even if you had the entire world as an audience.
DraftScience
DraftScience
9 hours ago (edited)
@NinjaMonkeyPrime You do not get to tell me what my topic is

You responded to my original comment... Unfortunately it turns out you had nothing to offer but irrelevancy.

you actually think it's me who is wasting time on credentials and authority.

All you've done is make fallacious arguments from Authority... You want to see other people's evidence yet you have no evidence to show. You are a duplicitous hypocrite.

My topic has always been and always will be about how debate is the cry...

Why are you commenting on physics videos when you don't want to Comment about physics?

t
hose who cannot prove their case with evidence.

What evidence have I been shown proving any of your arguments? or showing any of mine to be false.

debate is the tool that you can only fall back to when you lack evidence.

Apparently you don't realize that kinetic energy was debated for decades... Or maybe you do realize they had no evidence then, they have no evidence now. I guess you're just a propagandizing dupe. Just a religious nutter.

Since you cannot prove that you're correct

I can prove you can't reasonably counter any of my arguments

talk someone's ear off

The questions were quite short and the videos I want you to respond to are just 15 minutes long

In the end it is my fault

I agree the uselessness of this conversation was all your fault.

the odds are very likely it's not the world that's wrong,

Now that's worth rolling on the floor and laughing at

a debate won't fix that,

In the end if we have time to get to a good end, debate will eradicate all the silly Notions including the unscientific nonsense you are propagandizing for.
AB science
AB science
8 hours ago
If you watched Walter Lewin's lectures and actually understood them, then you would realise that your questions don't actually make sense. I'm sure that they do in your mind, but the problem is simply that you do not understand the language well enough to communicate the questions in a sensible manner. I think I know what you are trying to ask, I would recommend that you go through Walter Lewin's lectures again and then go through the accompanying exercises. If your question is what I think it is, it would be a trivial exercise to find the answer after you have sat this basic mechanics course and done the practice problems. If you still have these questions after giving it a good try, at least you will be able to communicate them effectively.
DraftScience
DraftScience
2 minutes ago (edited)
@AB science
If you watched Walter Lewin's lectures

I've played 40 of the full lectures in my videos and watched them all more than once.

and actually understood them,

He doesn't say anything regarding the history of leibnitz living Force . In one lecture he argues that there are two diff voltage's in the same location. I outed the probing error before electricboom did his video.

then you would realise that your questions don't actually make sense.

Maybe the fault lies in yourself Horatio

I'm sure that they do in your mind

They really are simple thought experiments... Same force produces different kinetic Energies .... Paradox


but the problem is simply that you do not understand the language well enough to communicate the questions in a sensible manner.

The morons at quora evaded answering the questions but they didn't use this excuse.

I think I know what you are trying to ask

What is this a knock knock joke... So I'm supposed to say what besides then why don't you answer the questions

I would recommend that you go through Walter Lewin's lectures again

I bet I know more about the history of the kinetic energy formula then Walter Lewin.

and then go through the accompanying exercises.

The accusation is you are using circular reasoning to justify MV squared... The exercises don't unravel the free energy paradoxes.

If your question is what I think it is

Questions are to be answered not to be endlessly gossiped about

it would be a trivial exercise to find the answer

What's trivial is the supporting clay experiments.


after you have sat this basic mechanics course and done the practice problems.

The problem is you have no physical evidence defending this Voodoo formula

If you still have these questions after giving it a good try

Eventually a credentialed physicist is going to actually research the subject and realize the obvious truth that Newton's momentum mechanics was not in anyway substantially broken and that the kinetic energy formula Was an embarrassing scientific misstep. You're going to be on the wrong side of that destiny and look pretty foolish.


, at least you will be able to communicate them effectively.

Your evasion was effective... But also quite obvious




Same forces, different energies... paradox - again, it is very clear that you haven’t understood the lectures. You may think you do, but you don’t.

You should look into how energy is defined. Start with the definition of potential energy and the use the simple case of an object falling down a constant potential gradient to derive the formula for kinetic energy.

Once you have grasped these concepts, you can take the example problem that you give and find out what the difference is between the situations. (Hint: the higher energy object results in greater compression of the spring).

Just take a moment to think about what you are saying. There are two possible consequences:

Either all physics is wrong and you are the only person smart enough to realise it, or you have misunderstood something.

Are you really arrogant enough to conclude the former? Even when we consider the fact that the definition for kinetic energy is used in every branch of physics?




DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
@AB science Same forces, different energies... paradox - again, it is very clear that you haven’t understood the lectures. You may think you do, but you don’t.

This arguments over as soon as you produce evidence...Show me things with inverse mass to Velocity ratios producing different amounts of work/energy/pressure... Show me a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour lighting more lights then a 10 ton train going 5 miles an hour. You can't show any example of it because it doesn't happen. As Newton knew there is only momentum.


You should look into how energy is defined.

It's defined in units... And your theory says a dime going 1000 miles an hour has 1,000 more units then 2 kilograms going 1 mile an hour. That's plainly physically ridiculous.

Start with the definition of potential energy

Thinking potential energy has anything to do with this demonstrates you don't know the 350 year old subject/controversy at all.

and the use the simple case of an object falling down a constant potential gradient to derive the formula for kinetic energy.

Collisions aren't falling down constant potential gradients. Not all energy exchanges are gravitational... And it's so silly your physics thinks so

Once you have grasped these concepts, you can take the example problem that you give and find out what the difference is between the situations. (Hint: the higher energy object results in greater compression of the spring).

Yet you have no physical example you can link to. And I can link to lots of examples of conservation of momentum always working.


Just take a moment to think about what you are saying. There are two possible consequences:

The questions I asked illustrate the paradoxes clearly you refuse to answer them.

Either all physics is wrong and you are the only person smart enough to realise it

All physics is shockingly under-evidenced and I will clue you in there's no bent space, there's no Elemental wave, and there is no kinetic energy separate from momentum.

, or you have misunderstood something.

I haven't misunderstood your evasion

Are you really arrogant enough to conclude the former?

The Physical evidence gives me no choice

Even when we consider the fact that the definition for kinetic energy is used in every branch of physics?

How much you want to bet the formula wasn't in the computer that landed the lunar module on the moon.

DraftScience
DraftScience
12 hours ago
@AB science Same forces, different energies... paradox - again, it is very clear that you haven’t understood the lectures. You may think you do, but you don’t.

This arguments over as soon as you produce evidence...Show me things with inverse mass to Velocity ratios producing different amounts of work/energy/pressure... Show me a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour lighting more lights then a 10 ton train going 5 miles an hour. You can't show any example of it because it doesn't happen. As Newton knew there is only momentum.


Forest Fifer
Forest Fifer
10 hours ago
@DraftScience ffs, it's the man from planet TL;DR. I was going to ask you a question but then I read the About on your channel and realised it was a waste of time. We need to go back to pre-Einstein physics do we? You throwing Quantum Theory out as well? Best hand in all your electronic devices then.
MrJonnyharry
MrJonnyharry
7 hours ago
A dime going at 1000mph, or 2kg going at 1mph. I know which I’d rather have hitting me in the head.
DraftScience
DraftScience
2 hours ago (edited)
@Forest Fifer ffs, it's the man from planet TL;DR. I was going to ask you a question but then I read the About on your channel and realised it was a waste of time. We need to go back to pre-Einstein physics do we? You throwing Quantum Theory out as well? Best hand in all your electronic devices then.
>Lots of ironies in this this mush... The kinetic energy formula was an attack against Newton's physics... A physics that wasn't in any substantial way suspect and was verified by hard physical evidence. Oh and by the way, the attack was motivated by passionate religious beliefs.

And there's the fact that Einstein viewed photons making electricity before any post Einstein theories had been applied to the subject matter. Parts of quantum mechanics had been discovered long before Einstein.

Calling arguments names isn't debunking arguments.

DraftScience
DraftScience
2 hours ago
@MrJonnyharry A perfectly childish and unscientific reply. Every real scientist, like Newton, knows you have to look deeper then superficial appearance. Ironic you post this silly seems like argument on a video pointing out that appearances can be deceiving.
AB science
AB science
7 minutes ago
@DraftScience ahhh... a little switcharoo with the burden of proof there then? You see, there is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that our definition of potential energy works. You wouldn’t be able to post your nonsense on the internet if it didn’t. Considering that, it follows now that the burden of proof is on you.

It is now down to you to show that the definition is incorrect. But don’t worry, it is pretty straightforward and I won’t bore you with the details; A school child is expected to be able to devise an experiment to test this, so it should be pretty trivial for your superior physics knowledge.

Go on, step away from your half-baked thought experiments about things that you don’t understand and do some actual experiments.
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 minute ago (edited)
@AB science ahhh... a little switcharoo with the burden of proof there then?

As advocates in a trial of evidence there should be no unequal burden... It is you who are holding me to the higher standard then the standard you have to meet. The switch-a-roo is your hypocrisy

You see, there is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that our definition of potential energy works.

Potential energy really has nothing to do with the subject... There really is no real difference between potential and active energy. Gravity isn't potential energy it is always on Active Energy.

You wouldn’t be able to post your nonsense on the internet if it didn’t.
>You already gooed this Gaga gaga


Considering that, it follows now that the burden of proof is on you.

I'll just take this as an admission that after 350 years you still can't produce any credible physical evidence.


It is now down to you to show that the definition is incorrect.

I am actively soliciting a willing technician to perform the simple energy collecting experiment. Do you think the Cannonball will light more LEDs then The Recoil of the cannon? Sorry that's another question you won't answer.


But don’t worry, it is pretty straightforward and I won’t bore you with the details

These tripie remarks are only adding to the momentum of your failure.

A school child is expected to be able to devise an experiment to test this

Just as the school child could understand the questions I asked you.

so it should be pretty trivial for your superior physics knowledge.

I've now played this professor Lewin clip more than a dozen times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiWuGiBZjs
.... All that needs to be done is to add two Springs at the end of the track to collect the energy... But as we both should know the only thing to be collected is momentum.

Go on, step away from your half-baked thought experiments about things that you don’t understand and do some actual experiments.

Your team has had 300 years, millions of scientist, thousands of Laboratories, billions of dollars, and you haven't produced any credible physical evidence. Such duplicitous hypocrisy.


AB science
AB science
34 minutes ago
@DraftScience you can keep whining about a lack of evidence, but you don’t realise that with every dumb comment you post, you are adding to the body of evidence showing that our definition of kinetic energy works. Every time you strike a key, every bit of information that flows from your keyboard to be stored in local memory and then uploaded to the internet, every time someone reads your dumb shit. Every time, you add to the body of evidence. None of this would work otherwise.

Seriously, I’m not being funny or dismissive. The most honest, friendly, and constructive thing I can tell you is that you haven’t understood this stuff. You think you do, but you don’t. I have said this many times now and you just accuse me of trying to insult you. But it is not an insult; it really is sincere advice.
DraftScience
DraftScience
DraftScience
3 minutes ago (edited)
@AB science you can keep whining about a lack of evidence

Just like a Christian mocking the importance of evidence.

but you don’t realise that with every dumb comment you post,

but you do realize you're evading my questions.

you are adding to the body of evidence showing

So my comments are evidence. I wonder if you can get that theory of yours published?

that our definition of kinetic energy works.

Just like God works

Every time you strike a key, every bit of information that flows from your keyboard to be stored in local memory and then uploaded to the internet

More baby talk about how vmv the living Force made the internet...LOL

, every time someone reads your dumb shit. Every time, you add to the body of evidence. None of this would work otherwise.

Just more completely un evidenced assertion... Shameless propaganda

Seriously, I’m not being funny or dismissive.

You're being dishonest and evasive

The most honest, friendly, and constructive thing I can tell you is that you haven’t understood this stuff.

When they discover the disease of obnoxiea you're going to be the poster child.


You think you do, but you don’t.

So says another cowardly Authority

I have said this many times now and you just accuse me of trying to insult you.

I accused you of being ridiculously childish

But it is not an insult; it really is sincere advice.

And I sincerely believe you are functionally disabled by an insipidly lame arrogance.





Robert the Bruce
Robert the Bruce
8 hours ago
Whatever anyone here does, do not fall for draftscience's scams. He promised he would pay Stephen Brough $5000 and then reneged. He is a scammer.
1
Robert the Bruce
Robert the Bruce
8 hours ago
also a vitriolic anti-semite.
1
Dirac Delta
Dirac Delta
8 hours ago
@Robert the Bruce You are right.
AB science
AB science
8 hours ago
Not to worry, I don't think that anyone here is under any impression that he would honestly pay out what he promises. Even if he did, it would feel exploitative to take that much money from a person who is clearly not all there.

1
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
6 hours ago
@DraftScience I bet I know more about the history of the kinetic energy formula then Walter Lewin If you understand the material as well as you claim, did you ever test your knowledge by getting any academic credentials? I did not see any mention in YouTube nor your train wreck of a website. I can't help but wonder why you are making videos instead of trying to get hired at a university.
Dirac Delta
Dirac Delta
4 hours ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime He admits to flunking physics in high school. But, he did spend over 8 years studying physics playing physics lectures online for background noise to his insane internal monologue.
Dirac Delta
Dirac Delta
4 hours ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Oh, and somebody suggested years ago he prove his theory of light by shining a laser 500 feet in the woods where he lived. If his theory was correct, the light would be deflected by feet due to the movement of the earth through the galaxy. He bought a laser collimator for this experiment, and then he suddenly got cold feet and never did it. Then he conveniently had to move so he wasn't near a forest so he couldn't do it. This experiment was suggested by a commenter because draftscience was claiming that the LIGO experiment was fraudulent since the light would be deflected by the motion of the earth. Apparently he either never heard of the michelson morley experiment, or he thinks that's fraudulent too. Along with basically every interferometry experiment ever. Oh, and he mocks flat earthers and calls them crazy because they believe in a massive conspiracy theory.
1
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 minute ago
@Robert the Bruce I wonder if ab science would appreciate you lying in his comments. It does reflect on him you know. You are the comment company you keep.
DraftScience
DraftScience
39 seconds ago
@Robert the Bruce Preposterous lie
Frankly all of my best friends are Jewish
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
@AB science So supporting more unevidenced theory's I see... So I guess you're giving me permission to make up silly stories about you and post them on my videos or my website... No evidence required I can lie all I like with your permission. I thought you had low character I didn't realize it was no character.
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
​@NinjaMonkeyPrime I bet I know more about the history of the kinetic energy formula then Walter Lewin If you understand the material as well as you claim, did you ever test your knowledge by getting any academic credentials?

They don't give you degrees for knowing what's important... Just memorize the Dogma.

I did not see any mention in YouTube nor your train wreck of a website. I can't help but wonder why you are making videos instead of trying to get hired at a university.

So if I had degree that would change your opinion of the evidence, and the character of my arguments, and you would switch sides. You clearly don't have any degrees in logic
DraftScience
DraftScience
13 minutes ago (edited)
@Dirac Delta He admits to flunking physics in high school. But, he did spend over 8 years studying physics playing physics lectures online for background noise to his insane internal monologue.


So says the coward who won't answer the simple question: Do you think a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour would like twice as many LEDs as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour?
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
@Dirac Delta
Oh, and somebody suggested years ago he prove his theory of light by shining a laser 500 feet in the woods where he lived. If his theory was correct, the light would be deflected by feet due to the movement of the earth through the galaxy.

Obviously you don't understand the physics... deflected by feet is ridiculous.

He bought a laser collimator for this experiment,

That never happened


and then he suddenly got cold feet and never did it. Then he conveniently had to move so he wasn't near a forest so he couldn't do it.

I didn't do it because it became quite obvious a normal laser spreads too much with distance.

This experiment was suggested by a commenter because draftscience was claiming that the LIGO experiment was fraudulent since the light would be deflected by the motion of the earth.

Another stupid lie... The argument against ligo is beam Splitters don't create two equal beams.

Apparently he either never heard of the michelson morley experiment, or he thinks that's fraudulent too.

Michelson-morley has nothing to do with detecting an absolute frame.

Along with basically every interferometry experiment ever.

*Another stupid lie... I've argued it's not measuring distance as small as wavelengths of light. *

Oh, and he mocks flat earthers and calls them crazy because they believe in a massive conspiracy theory.

As your demonstrate you need no conspiracy theory to argue that many smart people are belligerently stupid when you are attack their fairy tales.


To anyone observing this conversation you should note how desperate they are to change the subject and evade answering my questions.

NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
46 minutes ago
@DraftScience You're claiming you know the material as well as the experts. You have a clear method to validate that. But you haven't proven it? Why not? Would that not give you credibility in their eyes? Would that not give you access to jobs at universities where the topics you wish to debate are discussed? Wouldn't you be better off reaching your audience at a university instead of YouTube? Are you not interested in reaching the audience that you are so sure is wrong? Wouldn't a job at a university be the best place to do that?

What am I missing here? You want to reach a certain audience and the path to that audience seems very clear. You also seem to think you could pass any test on the subject with ease and gain the credentials that would give you access to the audience you seek. So why not follow that path to reach the goal you seem to want?
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
28 minutes ago
@Dirac Delta I found it interesting he found testing knowledge was good for debate, and claiming he knew more than those who taught the subjects, but never seems to have bothered with passing any tests that would prove he knew as much as claimed. And the mocking of flat Earthers is ironic since he seems to mimic them in so many ways. Hating Einstein, ignoring Michelson Morley, thinking LIGO is a fraud, claiming to know more than the world, and using the failed playground excuse I could prove you wrong but you're too stupid to understand so instead I'm going to take my ball and go home . I'm wondering what excuses he will have for not attempting to get any academic credentials to prove he does in fact understand the fields he claims to know. To bring it back to FE, it's just like claiming all pilots are liars while never bothering to become a pilot and prove you can actually plan a flight using some FE map. There's so much similarity with FE in both violently avoid the path that would actually benefit your cause the most.
DraftScience
DraftScience
6 minutes ago (edited)
@NinjaMonkeyPrime You're claiming you know the material as well as the experts.

I made very specific claims... For example regarding the history of the kinetic energy formula. I've done extensive research. And I've seen no College even glance at the subject.


You have a clear method to validate that.

Validate what? I can validate that no one can provide a link to any experiment where extra (Beyond momentum) kinetic energy is collected.

But you haven't proven it? Why not?

Proof works both ways... Newton proved momentum works by making many accurate predictions. Where are leibnitz accurate predictions?

Would that not give you credibility in their eyes?

They believe an un-evidence Theory now... their the ones with a credibility problem.


Would that not give you access to jobs at universities where the topics you wish to debate are discussed?

I don't need no stinking badges to drive you to distraction and evasion

Wouldn't you be better off reaching your audience at a university instead of YouTube?

The subject isn't why I didn't go to college... That's really none of your business... And it really is quite irrelevant.

Are you not interested in reaching the audience that you are so sure is wrong?

My videos are public and I'm offering $2,000 to be credibly debunked. I've offered to pay ab science to make a public video on one of the subjects but he won't name his price. Simple fact is you're all cowards.

Wouldn't a job at a university be the best place to do that?

For personal reasons that just didn't work out. Again none of your business.

What am I missing here? You want to reach a certain audience and the path to that audience seems very clear.

As clear as the fact that I watched Professor Lewin on YouTube.... Clearly video works as a communication modality.

You also seem to think you could pass any test on the subject with ease and gain the credentials that would give you access to the audience you seek.

Physics is taught as math not concepts... Do you think Professor Lewin was right to tell his students there are two voltages in the same location?

So why not follow that path to reach the goal you seem to want?

This comment thread has clearly shown that you all are afraid to answer some simple physics questions. The goal of proving you can't defend your own beliefs has been accomplished.
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime I found it interesting he found testing knowledge was good for debate

You don't talk so good... If I said anything it was that debate is good for testing knowledge

, and claiming he knew more than those who taught the subjects

I'm clearly claiming specific better knowledge. The subjects I've researched I know better than them.


but never seems to have bothered with passing any tests that would prove he knew as much as claimed.

the test I passed is not having a model with Direct contradictions in it... That create obvious paradoxes all right.

And the mocking of flat Earthers is ironic since he seems to mimic them in so many ways.

And you argue just like a religious Nutter.


Hating Einstein

That's just nonsense... But some of his physics was just rubbish

ignoring Michelson Morley

Just junk science... Can you link to any evidence the beam splitter created to equal beams?

thinking LIGO is a fraud

More junk physics... So unlike Einstein you think matter can be turned into Bent Space?

claiming to know more than the world

Claiming to be more rational... A more fact-based understanding

, and using the failed playground excuse

wtf?

I could prove you wrong but you're too stupid to understand so instead I'm going to take my ball and go home .

That's exactly what Baby science (ab) is claiming and doing.

I'm wondering what excuses he will have for not attempting to get any academic credentials to prove he does in fact understand the fields he claims to know.

I don't need to be a divinity School graduate to know the Bible is bulshit

To bring it back to FE, it's just like claiming all pilots are liars while never bothering to become a pilot and prove you can actually plan a flight using some FE map. There's so much similarity with FE in both violently avoid the path that would actually benefit your cause the most.

Flat earthers don't really believe their crap. If you wish to further damage your credibility try asserting I don't really believe what I argue. Like a flat earther you'll answer no relevant question and you keep trying to change the subject.

















NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
11 hours ago
@DraftScience Interesting response. The point made by A|B was that you so utterly lacked the basic understanding of the topic, that it would benefit you to go back and actually study that which you think is wrong. Your response seemed to indicate that you had perfect knowledge of the subject. And from what you said to me previously, you seemed to think testing knowledge was not only valid but also beneficial to science.

But when it comes to testing your knowledge of current physics, all I see are personal excuses for why that did not happen or why that will never happen. So all of those who have passed the tests, which indicate they understand the material as it is presented, should be ignored. Even though they say that you don't understand the material. And even though you have not nor ever will pass any test that proves you do understand the material as presented. Because of personal reasons. Everyone who has passed the test to prove understanding is wrong. But you who refuses to pass any test to prove understanding is correct. Cool story bro. I can't imagine why you don't have more people following you.

Sorry but this is a very flat Earth argument. It's not that you couldn't pass all those tests and become a pilot and plot a flight plan without using spherical geometry. It's just that certain things prevent you from doing what would actually prove you are correct. Because reasons.


The epitome of FE is make excuses for doing anything that would prove you correct. Congrats on your similarity.
NinjaMonkeyPrime
NinjaMonkeyPrime
10 hours ago
@DraftScience Claiming to be more rational... A more fact-based understanding While at the same time not having any facts? To quote a famous flat Earther, interesting.

I don't need to be a divinity School graduate to know the Bible is bulshit It's amazing how you mimic the FE clan so openly while not seeing the resemblance. They dismiss basic geometry as religion while you dismiss common evidence in physics as religion. And while at the same time both claiming to have perfect understanding. It's like you're trolling.
Robert the Bruce
Robert the Bruce
7 hours ago
@DraftScience BTW while you were busy being a bum, I went out and found some youtubers willing to take you up on your offer to discuss your physics on their channel. The first is called TheBreakfastClub hosted by Gothatfunk. They do a show every saturday night, and they expressed interest in having you one, especially after one of their commenters falsely claimed you committed suicide.

The other is a podcast called the Square Table Degenerates (STD, get it? lol). They claimed they'd be happy to play your video on their channel to collect that $2000. You are still offering to pay that, aren't you? Don't tell me you've reneged on that as well... tsk tsk. Anyway, let me know if you wanna go on one or the other or both. I will arrange it for you since you're likely too lazy to do any of that yourself. Just let me know, ole buddy o' pal.
science talks, shit walks
science talks, shit walks
47 minutes ago
@DraftScience hey, how's that computer model coming along? Modeled the hydrogen atom yet? 🤣
Zain :D
Zain :D
35 minutes ago
What I am about to share is something I haven't told anybody. When I was 10, I went to visit my grandparents in new jersey with my two cousins. Our grandparents owned a farm in Mendham, and we stayed in a little guest house out near the corn field. Anyway, late one night we were woken to the sound of rustling hay. We got the crazy idea that one of the scarecrows had come to life and was sneaking around in the guest house, partly because we didn't know any better and didn't know about child molesters yet. Anyway, there were a set of footprints leading through the bedroom, and the door was left open. We were scared but we never told anybody what happened. Anyway, I thought that was a weird experience that I'm certain has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with this comment thread in any way whatsoever.
RockyRoads666
RockyRoads666
23 minutes ago
@Zain :D That's creepy. Yeah, I used to go to west morris high and a scarecrow, (possibly the same one, we don't know, do we), used to take his camcorder and film kids near the school.
16 minutes ago
@RockyRoads666 ​ @Zain :D ​😱








@NinjaMonkeyPrime Interesting response. The point made by A|B was that you so utterly lacked the basic understanding of the topic

A point with no evidence is pointless.


, that it would benefit you to go back and actually study that which you think is wrong.

You would show you had some Integrity by answering my simple questions


Your response seemed to indicate that you had perfect knowledge of the subject.

Another ridiculous lie... Would I explained is that I have research the specific physics subjects extensively.


And from what you said to me previously, you seemed to think testing knowledge was not only valid but also beneficial to science.

News flash, me asking questions is a way of testing your knowledge. You are obviously evading the test.

But when it comes to testing your knowledge of current physics.

I'm for the debate/testing remember


, all I see are personal excuses for why that did not happen or why that will never happen.
>Just as I won't be going to Divinity School to learn the Bible is rubbish

So all of those who have passed the tests, which indicate they understand the material as it is presented

The quality of the material is what's a issue.. And you're just desperately trying to change the subject.


, should be ignored.

No one is allowed to question authority... says you

Even though they say that you don't understand the material.

They say a lot of rubbish as evidenced by this comment section.

And even though you have not nor ever will pass any test that proves you do understand the material as presented.

News flash once again I am for the debate /test

Because of personal reasons. Everyone who has passed the test to prove understanding is wrong.

They haven't passed the courage test or the Integrity test

But you who refuses to pass any test to prove understanding is correct.

I'll answer any of his questions he won't answer any of mine

Cool story bro.

Dude, you have a small penis right

I can't imagine why you don't have more people following you.

A B isn't breaking any records either


Sorry but this is a very flat Earth argument.

Then why are you having such a hard time debunking any of it.

It's not that you couldn't pass all those tests and become a pilot and plot a flight plan without using spherical geometry.

Flying a plane certainly isn't brain surgery

It's just that certain things prevent you from doing what would actually prove you are correct.

Having a degree proves you correct... LOL

Because reasons.
The epitome of FE is make excuses for doing anything that would prove you correct. Congrats on your similarity.


I've produced physical experimental evidence you've produced nothing.
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Claiming to be more rational... A more fact-based understanding While at the same time not having any facts?

Facts presented are Newton's accurate predictions... And the various experiments I have linked to. Unlike a flat Earth debunker you have provided no satellite images, are any form of evidence at all.

To quote a famous flat Earther, interesting.

Quoting a religious kook. Just believe in the living Force.

I don't need to be a divinity School graduate to know the Bible is bulshit It's amazing how you mimic the FE clan so openly while not seeing the resemblance.

and you still can't answer my simple questions just like a religious kook


They dismiss basic geometry as religion

Just like you

while you dismiss common evidence in physics as religion.

Evidence I don't see no stinking evidence

And while at the same time both claiming to have perfect understanding. It's like you're trolling.

It's like you're just a monkey throwing poop
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
@Robert the Bruce BTW while you were busy being a bum, I went out and found some youtubers willing to take you up on your offer to discuss your physics on their channel.

More silly lies


The first is called TheBreakfastClub hosted by Gothatfunk. They do a show every saturday night, and they expressed interest in having you one, especially after one of their commenters falsely claimed you committed suicide.

The fact that you find misinformation entertaining should be noted by the reader of this comment. Really shows the Integrity of science Defenders.

The other is a podcast called the Square Table Degenerates (STD, get it? lol).

My offer is clearly to science channels

They claimed they'd be happy to play your video on their channel to collect that $2000. You are still offering to pay that, aren't you?

More lies and misinformation... Clearly illustrating your arguments have no integrity.

Don't tell me you've reneged on that as well... tsk tsk.

More lies

Anyway, let me know if you wanna go on one or the other or both. I will arrange it for you since you're likely too lazy to do any of that yourself. Just let me know, ole buddy o' pal.

You know an argument must be failing if they have to resort to throwing their dirty socks. LOL
DraftScience
DraftScience
1 second ago
@science talks, shit walks How's answering my simple questions coming... Having trouble finding your dick
DraftScience
DraftScience
46 seconds ago (edited)
​@RockyRoads666 So science needs doxing And lying slander to defend it?
















ToolBox:
The Draft Science Link Box
Just right click, and 'bookmark' this Link --

DS

(or drag the link into your bookmark toolbar)

To load the tool just click the bookmark you created.



or if you have Greasemonkey [firefox] installed or tampermonkey [chrome], use this user-script --and the tool will auto load

for firefox you might need this to enable Active Content Toggle Mixed Active Content


To add the toolbar to your website post this code inside the BODY tages:
<script language="Javascript" src="http://donotgo.com/box/a6/a6dng2x.js?v=AUTO_INCREMENT_VERSION"></script>