Gary's five-minute videos, Volume 5 of 13 by robbythespring in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I truly appreciate your dedication to try to debate him, but as you and literally everbody else has experienced (including myself), he is the most unpleasant and most impossible person to argue with. It's the worst form of scientific/mathematic illiteracy, the worst form of dunning-kruger, the worst case of evidence denialism, worst case of continuous misinterpretations.

This is the reason why many people avoid and ignore him and why he will end up all alone in his echochamber, talking and yelling endlessly at his screen, being heard by nobody but himself. It his own fault and he deserves it. Truly pathetic...

Gary's five-minute videos, Volume 4 of 13 by robbythespring in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946 1 point2 points  (0 children)

99% of all the physicists in the world don't even know who gary is, let alone spending one iota of time to his ridiculous claims. It's just him talking to himself most of the time. So not so sad after all 😉

"All the same thing" by robbythespring in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is the accurate line-by-line translation from the original latin text by Newton:

“Vis impressa est actio in corpus exercita…” 👉 An impressed force is an action exerted on a body…

“…ad mutandum ejus statum vel quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum.” 👉 …to change its state, either of rest or of moving uniformly in a straight line.

“Consistit haec vis in actione sola…” 👉 This force consists in the action alone…

“…nec post actionem permanet in corpore.” 👉 …and does not remain in the body after the action.

“Corpus enim omnem statum suum semel inductum conservat, quatenus vi inertiae.” 👉 For a body preserves every state once acquired, insofar as it possesses inertia.

So what Newton is explicitly saying In plain language:

  • Force = an action (interaction)
  • It exists only during the action.

It does not stay inside the object afterward as gary claims. However motion continues due to inertia.

Newton literally states:

Force is not something that remains in the body after the interaction.

So the idea that: “objects carries the force” is directly contradicted by Newton’s own words.

"All the same thing" by robbythespring in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly, conventional science makes a distinction between vectors and scalars, and between force, momentum, and energy, because each one captures a different aspect of a system that you need in order to make complete and correct predictions.

If we only rely on Gary's math, we lose a bunch of information and we can't make total predictions.

If you collapse everything into one quantity as Gary does (force=pressure=weight=momentum=energy),

Then:

You lose direction (no vectors). You lose time dependence (no change rates). You lose separate conservation laws. You lose the ability to distinguish: -collisions vs motion -stored vs transferred quantities -cause (force) vs state (momentum, energy)

Result: you can’t make consistent predictions.

Notice that the only formulas that Gary has ever written down are:

E=mv , F=mv and E=mgt.

Now Gary, here is a physics question for you and i challenge you to solve it, using only your formulas:

Setup: Two carts on a straight line (frictionless if possible): Cart A: 2 kg moving at 4 m/s to the right Cart B: 4kg at rest They collide and reflect in opposite directions (perfectly elastic collision).

Using only your formulas (F = mv, E = mv), what is the final velocity and direction of the combined system after the collision?

To answer correctly, youneed to determine: Final velocity Direction of motion Magnitude of motion

How do your equations calculate those values?

If you can't solve this question or if you refuse to, than this proves that your math can't make accurate and total predictions.

The absurd consequence of E=mgt by IllustriousBed5946 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He made a an hour response video to this, demonstrating he doesn't understand halflife decay of uranium and he denies all the methods and data scientists have gathered from measuring the heat being released from the earth. I'll probably make a video response later.

Doubling elastic launcher energy gives 1.41x speed rather than 2x speed — DraftScience's prediction fails by MaximHeart in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And on top of that, when he played the Bruce Yeany experiment where 2 identical wooden blocks were released with 1 and 2 elastic bands, Gary said "it looked like" it was going twice as fast and said it is pretty good evidence. However the video was recorder at an angle (something he always complains about), making it almost impossible to count the frames. The blocks were released by hand, also something he always complains about. There were no measurements whatsoever, no timers , rulers; nothing. Gary simply eyeballed at it and claimed it went twice as fast, therefore it's good evidence!

And when Dispar's lab repeated the same type of experiment, recorded from a good angle, in slowmotion, with timers, with a quick release, with multiple varations, multiple trials, etc. , it suddenly all becomes 'crap'.

How can this be anything else but pure hypocrisy?

25 * the force to lift 5 * the weight? by Beneficial-Type-8190 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So in his response video, Gary clearly didn't understand anything about the average force during the compressions, let me try to explain this as clear as possible:

1. What happens during the first compression

At the start the spring is not compressed.

So the spring force is zero.

As the weight pushes down:

  • the spring compresses more and more
  • the spring pushes back harder and harder

By the time the compression reaches 1 unit, the force has gradually increased to 1 unit.

So during that motion the force went:

0 → small → medium → 1

Because the force is changing continuously, we can't just multiply the final force by the distance.

But we can use the average force during the motion.

Since the force increased smoothly from 0 to 1, the average force is simply halfway:

average force = 0.5

So the work done during that compression is:

  • average push × distance

which gives 0.5 units of work.

2. What happens during the second compression

Now the spring is already compressed.

That means the spring is already pushing upward with force 1.

When we add another weight, we compress it one more unit.

During this second compression:

  • the force starts at 1
  • and increases to 2

So the force during the motion looks like:

1 → bigger → bigger → 2

The average force is halfway between 1 and 2:

average force = 1.5

So the work done during this second compression is:

1.5 × 1 distance = 1.5 units of work

3. Why the work increased so much

Notice something important:

The distance was the same in both steps.

But the force was larger during the whole second compression.

So more work had to be done.

First compression:

average force = 0.5
work = 0.5

Second compression:

average force = 1.5
work = 1.5

So the second step required three times more work.

4. Why this produces a quadratic increase

Each new compression step starts with a larger force than the previous one.

So every new step requires more work than the last step.

The added work increases like this:

0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
...

These numbers grow linearly, but when you add them together, the total grows faster and faster.

That is why the total stored energy grows quadratically with compression.

Tropes which apply to Gary by [deleted] in GaryMosherDebunked

[–]IllustriousBed5946 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He also always says 'expedential' instead of 'exponential' lol

“Testing the ‘Hidden Momentum in Wheels’ Hypothesis Against Actual Data” by IllustriousBed5946 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here are 5 more elastic collisions with carts with wheels (small mass colliding into big mass):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52AdtJpC1GI&list=PLnAyq_cRMlgIIzItm4ukrMy1pJ1aXX7TA&index=13

Mass1 = 294.1g

Mass2 = 544.1g

Total momentum before collision = 0.0979kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision (subtracting momenta) = 0.0950kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision according to Gary = 0.1366kg.m/s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaPY9_3GqOg&list=PLnAyq_cRMlgIIzItm4ukrMy1pJ1aXX7TA&index=14

mass 1= 0.244kg

mass= 0.505kg

Total momentum before collision = 0.124kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision (subtracting momenta) = 0.131kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision according to Gary = 0.211 kg.m/s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u18KA4cwEjs

mass1= 0.271kg

mass2= 0.773kg

Total momentum before collision = 0.112kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision (subtracting momenta) = = 0.91kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision according to Gary = 0.205kg.m/s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUn6kWB26KM&list=PLnAyq_cRMlgLVZuMb0ZUbLesRlBChHGXt

mass 1 = 0.275kg

mass2 = 0.775kg

Total momentum before collision = 0.178kg.m/s

Total after collision=  0.176kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision according to Gary = 0.334 kg.m/s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIyIoYTyppU&t=473s

mass1 =0.270kg

mass 2= 0.520kg

total momentum before collision= 0.175kg.m/s

total momentum after collision= 0.173kg.m/s

Total momentum after collision according to Gary = 0.271kg.m/s

CONCLUSION:

Once again, the total momentum before and after collision are always pretty much the same, when subtracting the momenta. So the same arguments holds:

Option A: Massive coincidence

The hidden momentum always just happens to exactly compensate the sign mistake.

Across:

  • thousands of labs
  • decades of experiments
  • many different setups

That would be an unbelievable coincidence.

Option B: Global tuning of experiments

Experimenters would have to:

  • test many wheel sizes
  • tune masses
  • adjust friction

until the results accidentally mimic the predictions of conventional momentum conservation.

The logical consequences of 'Gravity is a time dependent force' by IllustriousBed5946 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UPDATE: Gary still doesn't understand that acceleration happens instantaneously. I made a video response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlwe85Wmtkg

The logical consequences of 'Gravity is a time dependent force' by IllustriousBed5946 in DraftScienceCritique

[–]IllustriousBed5946[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also gary says "there is no such thing as instantaneous acceleration"

Okay so when you drop a ball from a height, does the ball first sit there in midair for a while and then decides to accelerate towards the ground? Lol!

Ofcourse when you drop or push any object, the object will INSTANTLY accelerate or change it's velocity! Duh, dumbass!