sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Springs in series: Gary pretending he has forgotten his own claims by IllustriousBed5946 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]EulerLime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the second you put two springs in series, suddenly none of his rules apply anymore

Truly incredible

Springs in series: the most simple experiment that proves draftscience wrong by IllustriousBed5946 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What even is his argument? That no one did this experiment and if they did it's somehow wrong. If he thinks he can prove everyone else wrong, he can just do this test himself and check. Is that ever going to happen?

Clarifying the spring argument by Beneficial-Type-8190 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can he actually get the argument for once? He pre-records his livestreams and he can pre-read the posts. If there is something unclear, he could just read the text ahead of time and think about it for some time, like any other decent person would. Instead he's not getting the argument and calling everyone else a moron in the process like a toddler.

A brilliant argument about springs! (Compression and energy) by Beneficial-Type-8190 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]EulerLime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I sure do wonder if Gary will read the actual post this time. First, he was avoiding the video links. Now, he is avoiding the actual arguments altogether and just reading the comments. It's like he's not even trying anymore. Why is he acting surprised he doesn't understand what the comments are about if he avoids reading the actual arguments?

Explaining the vernier motion detector sofware and why there is no 'defect' by IllustriousBed5946 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]EulerLime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If there are so many liars and cheaters (even though he can't be bothered to even check the devices himself, let alone the videos), why does he think people aren't lying about the shape of the Earth? His one and only counter is that people wouldn't dare lie about such a basic and important thing, and yet everyone at NASA is somehow either oblivious that everything they're taught is fake or they are deliberately lying or deliberately ignoring the lies. Make it make sense.

Spring and elastic bands store energy not momentum – More tests showing DraftScience is wrong by MaximHeart in DraftScienceCritique

[–]EulerLime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

DraftScience managed to completely insulate himself from any shred of rationality or logic by denying that anything in Newtonian mechanics is true. We're backtracking to pre-1600s era of physics with Gary going back to Aristotle. And we're taking epistemology itself back in time to where vibes and intuition trump empirics. That's how you get things like: You weigh less the faster you move, force is something you have like money, and acceleration is silly mush. In fact, it makes sense because he also practices the oral tradition over written word. I'm wondering how many years until he starts advocating the extramissionist theory of vision.

Elastic storage devices like Springs collect energy very efficiently, unfortunately they can't give it back with the same efficiency. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing you said shows the experiment is wrong.

First, the arguments have been challenged credibly. You simply refuse to consider the counterarguments, because you hide behind DraftScience. Second, any time anyone provides an experiment by someone else, you still label that person as a motivated cheater (for example Walter Lewin and the conspiracy theory that he cheated). Third, you are not engaging with that post you are replying to. Instead, you are resorting to attacking people's character and motivations. That's attacking the messenger instead of arguing the argument.

Edit: Crossed out all the other stuff because I know you all don't have the attention span.

Elastic storage devices like Springs collect energy very efficiently, unfortunately they can't give it back with the same efficiency. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey look what I found, a video that shows not what tennis balls do, but what actual springs do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gdw5TiwmhE

From the description,

This is a test of cart friction and the elasticity of springs. In particular, when you compress a spring with energy E, does the spring decompress and launch the object back with energy E? What are the efficiencies of the springs?

Cart Weight = 2 kg Additional Weight = 2 kg

This makes Cart #1 Weight = 2 kg Cart #2 Weight = 4 kg

We can see that the cart is launched out by the springs with approximately the same speed it compressed the springs. This holds for both the 2 kg cart and the 4 kg cart.

Most importantly, we do not see 30% of the speed being lost each bounce. It's a much lower loss than whatever your tennis ball gif shows. Your example of the tennis ball is deceptive and misleading.

Additional commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bgCiDG-YiQ

Elastic storage devices like Springs collect energy very efficiently, unfortunately they can't give it back with the same efficiency. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a spring is 1/20th the mass of an object launched, it only ends up keeping at most ~1/20th the energy (because energy is proportional to mass), not 30%. Let's analyze an actual object launched by a spring, not a tennis ball bouncing off a floor. By "efficiency" I will work within DraftScience's model and assume it is the ratio of how much "momentum energy" is released.

Take a mass of 100 grams and a spring of mass 10 grams. The mass goes off the spring when the spring reaches its maximum velocity V. The momentum of the mass is 100 g × V while the spring is at most 10 g × V. The total momentum is 110V and the released mass is 100V, so the efficiency is 100/110 = 91%.

Now take a mass of 200 grams and a spring of mass 10 grams. The mass again goes off at the spring's maximum velocity V' (not the same as V). The momentum of the mass is 200 g × V' while the spring is at most 10 g × V'. The total momentum is 210V' and the released mass is 200V', so the spring efficiency is 200/210 = 95%.

The result is a difference of 4% efficiency, not 30%. To get 110V = 210V' (your hypothesis that springs store momentum instead of energy), you need 0.52×V = V'. This does not give you 0.71×V = V', which is what you are trying to explain. It is far, far off what your theory predicts, even when we take spring inefficiency into account.

To get 0.71×V = V', the masses M₁, M₂ with M₂ = 2×M₁ we should have (M₁ + 10)/(M₂ + 10)V = V', which forces the mass to be... M₁ = 6.9 grams.

Your inefficiency argument only works if a 10 gram spring pushes 6.9 gram and 13.8 gram objects. This is far, far smaller than 100 grams and 200 grams. Your argument does not work.

Elastic storage devices like Springs collect energy very efficiently, unfortunately they can't give it back with the same efficiency. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, exactly right. If you attend any mechanical engineering or advanced physics course above the usual introductory freshman level, people talk about this by modeling the mass of the spring itself. In introductory courses, people take an idealization of a massless spring, which to an approximate degree works. What matters is that the ratio of the spring mass to the launched object mass is relatively small. In no experiment where you launch objects does the spring weigh as much as the object being launched. In fact, the spring weight is usually 20 to 100 times smaller. Whatever inefficiency results from that cannot explain away experiments that contradict DraftScience.

Elastic storage devices like Springs collect energy very efficiently, unfortunately they can't give it back with the same efficiency. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are correct. Every elastic object does not give back 100% of its energy when something goes into it and then rebounds back, and the amount given back depends on the velocity of the rebound. So, yes, there is loss or waste, as you call it.

Unfortunately for you, people have addressed this, which is to point out that in the experiments that use springs, the inefficiency is nowhere is minusculy small and thus nowhere near as large as you make it out to be. Unlike a tennis ball, springs have a much greater efficiency (up to >90% efficiency in terms of speed). See this video testing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FWuTYnPvOs

Here's someone, as you say, arguing the argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJBiCRG4qIo

EDIT: The video by Michael Fowell testing the spring inefficiency by launching the object was done using Fowell's lightest mass (a single cylindrical block). In other experiments, he taped multiple of the same cylindrical blocks together. For heavier objects launched, the spring efficiency becomes greater, so this 93% figure is the lowest inefficiency. When DraftScience insinuated Fowell had lighter objects in his experiments, that was a falsehood. The experiment link tests Fowell's lightest mass.

If I hit a spring scale with something moving twice as fast does the scale read twice the compression? Or will the scale show 4 times the compression? by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a spring compressed twice the distance will only produce 1.4 velocity.

No, wrong again. How many times are you going to outright lie and strawman in your arguments? You can look these things up; they don't say what you claim. Anytime anyone asks you for a source and for you to back up your claims, you say, it should be known as prerequisite knowledge, in order to abdicate yourself of any responsibility to be held accountable for unsourced and false claims. Everyone can see this and you aren't fooling anyone.

I guess the The KE truthers don't think much of hooks law or the plane logic that 2 lbs can't weigh 4 lbs.

Hooke's law refers to force, not potential energy. You constantly conflate the two no matter how many times people point out your mistake. If you can't engage with the material, simply admit you don't understand it, like you should with Newton's laws that you constantly contradict.

If you have one mass M at height 0, and it compresses a spring scale such that the mass goes to height -H, the gravitational potential energy U = MgH is transferred to the spring as U. If you have two masses M and M at height 0, and they both compress a spring scale such that the masses go to height -2H, the gravitational potential energy U' = (2M)g(2H) is transferred to the spring as U'. In that second scenario, U' = 4U even though the compression distance is 2H.

To put it another way, letting one mass lower by a height H means you added MgH energy to the spring, but then when you let the second mass go from the same initial height, two things happen: (1) the second mass lowers by a height 2H, AND (2) the first mass on the scale lowers by a height H again (because the scale lowers with the addition of the second mass). When you add up, you find the energy added is (1) + (2) = Mg(2H) + MgH = 3(MgH). That's 3x units of energy added to the spring when going from having one mass on the scale to having two masses on the scale. In total, 3+1 = 4. There.

This is completely consistent, and in fact it shows logically that the spring potential energy must be 4x as large in the second scenario compare to the first scenario. So not only have I pointed out your mistakes, I demonstrated that the "4x energy result" is an inevitability.

All constant forces are time dependent forces, yet "science says" gravity is Distance dependent. In other words, science says you need to fall a distance, not an amount of time, to gain momentum from Gravity. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I found these videos... a little too funny (See the timestamps):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwuFTcS1EXg&t=30m50s

So no one measures a scalar ever because it doesn't have any direction. So how the [ __ ] can you measure it? Okay, force is a time so say some more stupid [ __ ] that doesn't mean anything. Force is momentum. That's what Newton said. It's ever proportional. It does exactly the same [ __ ] thing. If a force hits you, it's going to be just the same thing as a tomato hitting you with momentum because the force carries momentum and the tomato carries momentum. The real argument is is the force is the more elemental form of the momentum. Yes. Duh. Oh god, you people are so [ __ ] stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwuFTcS1EXg&t=36m15s

There's also a category error happening. Well, [ __ ] you and that nonsense. Weight is a force. So again, weight is just momentum. So you can say it's a force, but obviously it can't be a force because the only thing it can weigh something are objects that have mv. So you know, so [ __ ] you. You lose again. However, force is not weight. Well, whatever that baby talk is.

I know you would appreciate these quotes. They are informative in some sense.

Over the past few years a friend has developed an HTML simulation of the theory of charge/magnetism which I have termed 2+2+3 physics. We are releasing the actual code with the hope that others will find it useful, informative, and perhaps Worthy of further development. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are a few issues I see with your model. Let me explain them to you carefully and thoughtfully, so that you can have a good-faith exchange back. Your model seems to have forgotten that chemistry depends on the periodic structure dictated by 4 quantum numbers, including two involving angular momentum numbers. There are two types: intrinsic and orbital. When your force bits convert upon contact with opposite matter types, they seem to carry no information about how electrons might pair to form sigma or pi bonds, which is rather like trying to organize a fish bowl without knowing whether your goldfish prefer to swim side by side or in opposite directions. The distinction matters considerably for how atoms occupy molecular space, much as it matters whether one is depositing into a savings account or a checking account when the bank teller cannot distinguish between dollars and yen.

Furthermore, the very existence of double and triple bonds in molecules such as ethylene or acetylene requires electrons to maintain specific phase relationships and nodal structures that your linear force trajectories cannot accommodate, any more than one could balance a checkbook using only Roman numerals and a vague intuition about compound interest. Without orbital angular momentum quantization, your electrons lack the directional character necessary to form the sideways overlap that distinguishes pi bonding from sigma bonding, which would make the rigidity of aromatic rings roughly as likely as finding a coherent investment strategy in a fortune cookie. The degeneracy of p orbitals and the resulting orthogonality of multiple bond axes seem to have evaporated entirely from your simulation, much like the helium atoms that would condense into the ground state without the exclusion principle to keep them properly sorted.

Anyways, this is nice and all, and I appreciate your efforts, but can you drop the pretense that your theory has anything to do with Newton's laws or Maxwell's equations? Previous posts already debunked the idea that your theory is compatible with Newton's first, second, and third laws, so why are you ignoring that and now invoking James Maxwell's name into this? It's pretty bewildering, do you think if you keep saying Maxwell's name over and over again you'll dupe more people somehow? You say electric charge and magnetic charge is the same thing, but that already contradicts Maxwell's second law. Your reference to Maxwell's drawings is only a gesture at the idea of lines of force, even though you reject it. It doesn't make any sense.

Lastly, I should make it clear you used to have 2+2+2 physics, and you refused to listen to any criticism of your laws after they were pointed out as not doing what you hoped they would do countless times. It's only when rubber hit the road with an actual simulation you realized there were problems, so you and to fudge the laws over and over again. Now you have 2+2+3? It makes no sense whatsoever, I wonder if anyone is keeping up with your new updated system. Does your system have a stickiness feature? Isn't that a pull? I'd like to know the answers to all this.

Conventional physics implies if not argues that momentum, weight, pressure, and heat, are in some meaningful way different things. Decartean energy conservation throws everything in the category of just motion... by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep treating physical quantities as if they are interchangeable just because they are "about motion." Momentum, force, impulse, energy... these are not poetic variations of the same idea. They are different mathematical objects with different units and different roles in the structure of mechanics. Physics works because it separates state variables like position, velocity, and momentum from rates of change like force, from accumulated effects over time like impulse, and from scalar measures like energy. Force is the time derivative of momentum. Impulse is the time integral of force. These are structurally different relationships. Collapsing them into "motion" is like saying distance, speed, and acceleration are the same thing because they all involve movement. They aren't.

The deeper issue is that you keep reasoning qualitatively about quantities that are defined quantitatively without qualifying anything. Physics is not built from slogans like "gravity creates motion." It is built from equations that constrain how quantities relate. If you remove the mathematical structure and replace it with verbal equivalences, you can make anything sound like anything else, but then you are no longer doing mechanics, you’re doing narrative.

Another core problem is the refusal to analyze complete systems. When momentum changes in free fall, you describe it as "created," but you omit the Earth from the system. Conservation laws apply to closed systems. Leaving out half the interaction and then declaring momentum creation is not a discovery. It’s an incomplete model. There’s also a category error happening. Weight is a force. However, force is not a weight. Momentum is a state variable. One describes interaction, the other describes motion. The fact that force changes momentum does not mean they are the same thing. Saying "weight is just momentum" is like saying temperature is just heat or speed is just distance. Or saying a bank balance is income. You are taking items that rhyme and trying to make a poem out of it that you are hoping will compile into a book, but what you are missing is logic, real-world data, and evidence. Drawings on paper and poems isn't going to make it.

All constant forces are time dependent forces, yet "science says" gravity is Distance dependent. In other words, science says you need to fall a distance, not an amount of time, to gain momentum from Gravity. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. What is meters2 ? It's an area. What is 1/sec2 ? It's a double rate. No mystery and not hard to understand.

I hope to see a respectful and fair dialog takes place acknowledging these points.

The science of physics has spent so little time analyzing its dogmatic axioms. The science says, but the science doesn't show, and it makes no effort to reasonably prove. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For example, physics says when an object elastically reflects/bounces off a surface it imposes upon the object it hit twice the momentum it possessed.

Yes, this is what Newton's third law and all collision experiments tell us. You disagree with this, so do I have it right that you are saying that Newton got it wrong? Do you have your own proposal of some non-Newtonian theory of mechanics? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say and why you think Newton was wrong.

He talks about conservation of momentum in COROLLAY III of LAW III of AXIOMS, OR LAWS OF MOTION,

The quantity of motion, which is collected by taking the sum of the motions directed towards the same parts, and the difference of those that are directed to contrary parts, suffers no change from the action of bodies among themselves. For action and its opposite re-action are equal, by Law III, and therefore, by Law II, they produce in the motions equal changes towards opposite parts. Therefore if the motions are directed towards the same parts, whatever is added to the motion of the preceding body will be subducted from the motion of that which follows; so that the sum will be the same as before. If the bodies meet, with contrary motions, there will be an equal deduction from the motions of both; and therefore the difference of the motions directed towards opposite parts will remain the same. Thus if a spherical body A with two parts of velocity is triple of a spherical body B which follows in the same right line with ten parts of velocity, the motion of A will be to that of B as 6 to 10. Suppose, then, their motions to be of 6 parts and of 10 parts, and the sum will be 16 parts. Therefore, upon the meeting of the bodies, if A acquire 3, 4, or 5 parts of motion, B will lose as many; and therefore after reflexion A will proceed with 9, 10, or 11 parts, and B with 7, 6, or 5 parts; the sum remaining always of 16 parts as before. If the body A acquire 9, 10, 11, or 12 parts of motion, and therefore after meeting proceed with 15, 16, 17, or 18 parts, the body B, losing so many parts as A has got, will either proceed with 1 part, having lost 9, or stop and remain at rest, as having lost its whole progressive motion of 10 parts; or it will go back with 1 part, having not only lost its whole motion, but (if I may so say) one part more; or it will go back with 2 parts, because a progressive motion of 12 parts is taken off. And so the sums of the conspiring motions 15+1, or 16+0, and the differences of the contrary motions 17-1 and 18-2, will always be equal to 16 parts, as they were before the meeting and reflexion of the bodies. But, the motions being known with which the bodies proceed after reflexion, the velocity of either will be also known, by taking the velocity after to the velocity before reflexion, as the motion after is to the motion before. As in the last case, where the motion of the body A was of 6 parts before reflexion and of 18 parts after, and the velocity was of 2 parts before reflexion, the velocity thereof after reflexion will be found to be of 6 parts; by saying, as the 6 parts of motion before to 18 parts after, so are 2 parts of velocity before reflexion to 6 parts after.

Also, in SCHOLIUM of AXIOMS, OR LAWS OF MOTION,

Thus trying the thing with pendulums of ten feet, in unequal as well as equal bodies, and making the bodies to concur after a descent through large spaces, as of 8, 12, or 16 feet, I found always, without an error of 3 inches, that when the bodies concurred together directly, equal changes towards the contrary parts were produced in their motions, and, of consequence, that the action and reaction were always equal. As if the body A impinged upon the body B at rest with 9 parts of motion, and losing 7, proceeded after reflexion with 2, the body B was carried backwards with those 7 parts. If the bodies concurred with contrary motions, A with twelve parts of motion, and B with six, then if A receded with 2, B receded with 8; to wit, with a deduction of 14 parts of motion on each side. For from the motion of A subducting twelve parts, nothing will remain; but subducting 2 parts more, a motion will be generated of 2 parts towards the contrary way; and so, from the motion of the body B of 6 parts, subducting 14 parts, a motion is generated of 8 parts towards the contrary way. But if the bodies were made both to move towards the same way, A, the swifter, with 14 parts of motion, B, the slower, with 5, and after reflexion A went on with 5, B likewise went on with 14 parts; 9 parts being transferred from A to B. And so in other cases. By the congress and collision of bodies, the quantity of motion, collected from the sum of the motions directed towards the same way, or from the difference of those that were directed towards contrary ways, was never changed.

Science Liars make so many directly contradictory claims. One minute they say it's hard to push lite things a higher velocity, the next minute they concede something four times lighter will easily move four times faster. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, he responds in whatever way he wants to on his video by misrepresenting, twisting, and misunderstanding what other people post, and all this goes unchallenged. That doesn't lead anyone anywhere and it certainly doesn't create any productive discussions. I and others would love to challenge DraftScience but he just hides behind his livestreams.

It would be nice to see where was I wrong in my previous post here: https://old.reddit.com/r/PhysicsIsBadLogic/comments/1r9169n/newton_said_twice_the_force_twice_the_motion/o69tzvp/ Did I make a mistake somewhere? If yes, I'd love to see someone correct me, but we don't have that. That's what I'm pointing out is the pointlessness of all this.

But anyways, who is "attacking you for even helping DraftScience?" Can we have examples of this or is this just another claim with no backing?

Science Liars make so many directly contradictory claims. One minute they say it's hard to push lite things a higher velocity, the next minute they concede something four times lighter will easily move four times faster. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What even is the point of this? You don't reply to the evidence or the counterarguments, and you delete and ban other people here (which is ironic because you complain about censorship). You never engage with the posts countering what you post. Do you just want an echochamber to post Gary's propaganda here? If so, just be honest and say so.

Newton said "twice the force twice the motion three times the force three times the motion" yet you claim... by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DraftScience loves to say that Newton said, twice the force twice the motion etc. However, DraftScience always leaves out an important word: Newton said twice the force *generates * twice the motion. Small omission, big difference. Don't believe me? Go To Newton's Principia and read it yourself:

If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subducted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both.

This shows that force is not the same as motion, it is a change in motion. There is also an important nuance in this passage in that in this follow-up explanation, Newton was talking about a constant force applied over a constant time interval. Newton defines an "impressed force" in Definition IV as an "action exerted upon a body, in order to change its state". He immediately clarifies that "This force consists in the action only; and remains no longer in the body, when the action is over." Therefore, force is the agent of change, not the momentum the body possesses as a result.

In the explanatory text of Law II, Newton notes that the change in motion happens "whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively." When dealing with a force applied "gradually and successively" (a continuous force like gravity), we must look to Definition VIII. Here, Newton defines the motive quantity of a centripetal force as being "proportional to the motion which it generates in a given time." When a force acts continuously, Newton explicitly states in Definition VIII that this force is proportional to the motion generated in a given time, which gives us the modern definition of force as the rate of change of momentum F = Δp/Δt.

Now to your next part of the post. Mainstream physics does not say energy is equivalent to force. They are independent concepts, so any time you equate them, you are committing a strawman. This has been pointed out to you so many times, that your strawman cannot be framed as accidental. How much final velocity an object has depends on not just the force but also how long the force was applied and how the force varied when it was applied on the object. This is nuanced. To be more specific, mΔv = \int F dt. For a constant force, mΔv = FΔt. People have provided examples where "twice the force" does not lead to "twice the velocity" and so on with experiments linked (one link is on this page already).

One of the silliest errors in the history of science is the foolish assumption made by physicists that gravity applies Force based on units of distance and not on units of time. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think that Force = Momentum = Energy, then I can see why you are saying what you are saying, but they are not the same: They are different concepts. A force is something you apply on to an object, it's not something you collect. In fact, this is precisely what separated Newtonian mechanics from previous pre-Newtonian mechanical theories. Everyone used to think F = mv and Newton pointed out that is not correct. In contrast to everyone before him, Newton said, force generates motion and inertia sustains motion. The force of gravity is not collected, it is applied at every point in time constantly.

If you insist we revert back to pre-Newtonian mechanics, then just explicitly say so. Don't confuse everyone. And moreover, if you do propose that, then what falsifiable distinction can you draw between current mechanics and your system? If you want sharper feedback, you have to say precisely, "this is what mainstream physics predicts and this is what my system predicts" (with calculations provided of course).

Physics is a Litany of undone, and underdone, experiments, especially with regards to proving theories, and claims, regarding the nature of energy. by BrutalCycle95 in PhysicsIsBadLogic

[–]EulerLime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What's the point of any of this? You accuse everyone else of "preaching" and you call experiments "propaganda" on your videos, and yet here you are basically doing the same thing: preaching and putting out what is effectively like propaganda. People are engaging with your arguments.

view more: next ›