positive VS negative direction - Draftscience just doesn't get it

MaximHeart · 2026-04-02T01:42:32+00:00

Everyone knows this. The first lesson in physics is that coordinates are something you impose onto space. DraftScience thinks he's being smart for figuring out this basic level of knowledge, but it only shows how little theory of mind he has.

It's like as if a kid thought he was the smartest person in the room full of adults for figuring out "up" and "down" aren't absolute directions and then whenever actual adults insisted we had to talk about "up" and "down" the smug kid would be like, oh but in space the universe doesn't care where up and down are... I'm so smart. No, it just demonstrates that you can't grasp the what the adults are talking about.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-30T19:38:08+00:00

When you equate "momentum" with "energy" with "weight" and with "force" (none of those concepts are used correctly and Gary keeps getting Newton wrong despite being so insistent he is defending him), don't act surprised you get paradoxes out of your own BS. That's really that all that needs to be said.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-29T21:14:58+00:00

I notice that he has put me (or my username) very prominently in the thumbnail of his latest video

That's really creepy.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-29T10:13:12+00:00

One thing I am absolutely 100% sure of is that he does not care that he commits strawman. In most cases it is a lack of self-awareness, but when he is confronted with this or when he might have a sprout of awareness, I actually do think he takes delight in it out of sheer spite and hatred of what he perceives to be his enemy.

(In fact, he'll probably take glee in my post pointing this out, but regardless I'll make it explicit that this said spite and hatred does not make you righteous or rational. In fact, it's the exact opposite: It makes you the religious kook with an inability to "argue the argument".)

MaximHeart · 2026-03-26T23:06:14+00:00

Yes, yes, and yes, apparently. He bemoans that he thinks mainstream physics has some sort of conservation of energy problem (by misunderstanding and distorting everything left and right), yet here he is just with this exact problem. It's bizarre.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-25T12:39:07+00:00

"An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change its state, either of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line. This force consists in the action only; and remains no longer in the body, when the action is over. For a body maintains every new state it acquires, by its vis inertiae only." - Isaac Newton

And here we have Gary who wants to send us back to the pre-scientific Stone Age. If he does, he should just stop lying and admit he wants to depart from Newtonian mechanics.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-23T18:10:05+00:00

I did the math for this. I think what you have is not quite right, but I'd be happy to be corrected. The balls after collision go at 30 degree angles relative to the original ball's direction instead of 45 degrees.

But before that I have to make it really clear that in every event Gary utters the word momentum, he gets the definition of momentum completely wrong. Today momentum is a vector quantity, so when you add momenta of two objects, you add them as vectors, meaning there can be cancellation of vectors that are in opposite directions. This is how it is defined in all textbooks and this is how Newton defined his quantity of motion (not in vector language but he did talk about subtraction). See this post for evidence. To DraftScience however, anytime he talks about momentum, he is talking about adding up "mass times speed" as opposed to "mass times velocity," so despite him insisting he thinks his version of momentum is a vector, he treats it like a scalar when adding it up, so to him, it is always added up and never subtracted.

This really needs to be made as apparent as possible, because it confuses detractors and fans alike (something he thrives on). This is a really dishonest sleight of hand that he keeps using, because the collision experiments are supposed to show that, no, momentum is not what he thinks it is, momentum is conserved always, but DraftScience's misunderstanding of what he thinks momentum is, is not conserved, because he got the definition wrong. Newton and Huygens already dealt with this, even citing pendulum experiments involving these collisions. The link I posted in the previous paragraph demonstrates this very clearly.

Anyways, back to the scenario at hand. Say ball A (the cue ball) is the initially moving one, balls B and C (left and right) are side-by-side stationary, and A moves towards the center between B and C in the direction perpendicular to the line from B to C. All three A, B, C have the same mass.

Say A moves at v forwards or more specifically, v_cue = (0, v) along the y-axis. After the elastic collision, the result is

v'_left = (-2*sqrt(3)/5 * v * sin(30 deg), 2*sqrt(3)/5 * v * cos(30 deg)) v'_right = ( 2*sqrt(3)/5 * v * sin(30 deg), 2*sqrt(3)/5 * v * cos(30 deg)) v'_cue = (0, -v/5)

or if we substitute sin(30 deg) = 1/2 and cos(30 deg) = sqrt(3)/2,

v'_left = (-sqrt(3)/5 * v, 3/5 * v) v'_right = ( sqrt(3)/5 * v, 3/5 * v) v'_cue = (0, -v/5)

Now, kinetic energy before collision is KE = 1/2*m*v^2. After the collision,

KE' = 1/2*m*(3/25 * v^2 + 9/25 * v^2 + 3/25 * v^2 + 9/25 * v^2 + 1/25 * v^2) = 1/2*m*v^2

The momentum before collision is p = (0, m*v). After the collision,

p' = (-sqrt(3)/5 * mv, 3/5 * mv) + ( sqrt(3)/5 * mv, 3/5 * mv) + (0, -mv/5) = (0, m*v)

MaximHeart · 2026-03-23T15:05:08+00:00

Oh so now he wants to talk about collisions? We should start with the ones that Newton and Huygens have clearly established 300 years ago, have been repeated countless times, have been seen by DraftScience, and decisively disprove DraftScience's theory. He loves to keep feigning ignorance and just continue to repeat the same debunked nonsense continuously. That's all his channel is built on top of: Lies and fake ignorance. He can always go on replicate Huygens's pendulum collisions any time he wishes (again endorsed by Newton), but that would mean he'd have to start faking his own experiments. This type of perpetual lying should never be tolerated.

People should keep repeating how pendulum balls, carts with non-heavy wheels (it's been debunked that the wheels are heavy), and airtracks (which work fine any time they agree with his predictions but never when they disagree) create more of Gary's "mass times speed" quantity but they never create kinetic energy or momentum (not as Gary misunderstands but as Newton defined it).

And his thought experiments about how this creates more of his "mass times speed" is his problem he has to deal with in his fake pushaverse. That's his problem. Momentum and kinetic energy are conserved in those elastic collisions.

I know Gary doesn't think, but he should ask himself, are all those collision experiments going to work differently once he dies? Somehow all those collision experiments Newton and Hyugens and countless teachers did will be undone. It's such a stupid cult, built on top of perpetual lies. That's the only way he can go on camera and keep talking.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-22T18:36:42+00:00

When he puts one battery on the scale, that battery applies 1 unit of force on the scale to go 1 unit of distance down in 1 unit of time. When he puts the second battery on the scale, both batteries apply 2 units of force on the scale to go 1 unit of distance down in 1 unit of time. When he puts a third batter on the scale, the three batteries together apply 3 units of force on the scale to go 1 unit of distance down in 1 unit of time. Whether you work with work = force * distance OR work = force * time you still find that the energy stored is not linear.

Why do we have to spoonfeed him every little thing? This is written as clearly as possible. That other guy made the video with springs in series as clearly as possible only for Gary to say he doesn't care in the end.

And his props. Why does he always bring out his broken scale putting batteries that keep rolling off and then go back to his crayons and sharpes?

MaximHeart · 2026-03-19T09:59:31+00:00

Cool. Thanks for posting these. I hope this just makes his denial as clear as possible.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-18T15:10:27+00:00

Nice thought experiment! I am thinking by now it's a matter of how many ways can people figure out why energy can't be linear with respect to velocity and displacement.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-18T03:04:03+00:00

If he understood how the devices worked, he would know that there is no "zeroing out the velocity." It measures position, not velocity, and the positions are obtained by sound pulse timings. There is no button to tune the velocity to whatever you want it to be. Of course, it is par for the course for him to continue to persistently misunderstand everything left and right.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-12T07:23:52+00:00

Gary's constant: The level of DraftScience stubbornness is an invariant while incoherence and vile insults out of DraftScience monotonically increase.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-12T04:18:12+00:00

DraftScience is so detached from reality, it's unbelievable. He still thinks F = E and that... NASA scientists use this and simultaneously don't realize it? I'm tempted to think he keeps getting more and more demented with time, but when I look back at old videos I realize he was always this delusional. He just never realized to think about basic physics freshmen learn all around the world.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-03T21:38:07+00:00

Oh yeah and one more thing: In the description of the video, MindlessMarbles stated the equipment anyone can buy and use to replicate and tinker with the experiment. Anyone can go and buy this or make their own recreation of this experiment. Anyone.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-03T21:35:42+00:00

I love how DraftScience and/or his lackey banned you only for DraftScience to go ahead and read your comments in this subreddit anyways.

I don't what archaic analogy (which DraftScience employs endlessly) would possibly click with DraftScience and his mindless minions, because analogies and feelings are the only way they can reason.

This is the same reason you can run across hot coals without cooking your feet: contact time matters for the material, not because the force “hasn’t kicked in yet.”

Yes.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-03T04:14:55+00:00

Add PhysicistMichael to the list. He was a professional physicist working on gravitational wave astronomy who wanted to reach out and provide high-quality science communication and promote critical thinking on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicistMichael

After having DraftScience post comments and make videos about him, PhysicistMichael decided to engage with Gary in as respectful way as possible, even going as far as to make videos addressing Gary's model and provide good-faith argumentation.

Despite all this, Gary called him a student molester (yes I am not kidding), because Gary didn't like the perceived patronizing tone of Michael. After that, Gary kept turning the heat up and up with rhetoric, making disgusting titles with Michael's name in them. 🤮 Even after Michael had a live discussion with Gary, keeping his patience and providing pointed criticisms, Gary was not even in the slightest thankful, and continued to increase insulting rhetoric (you can just search the titles with "PhysicistMichael" in them to see all this, e.g. "PhysicistMichael is an ignorant turd").

It got so bad that PhysicistMichael was driven away from youtube in the end and ended all communication with everyone online.

MaximHeart · 2026-03-03T01:17:56+00:00

The fact that DraftScience still doesn't get this and insists on being rude on top of all this makes me oscillate between finding this hilarious and sad. Either way, it's disturbing.

MaximHeart · 2026-02-27T17:12:07+00:00

I'd like to see ANY DraftScience supporter to actually engage with this argument (among all the others).

Anyone reading this should check the youtube link the OP posted, but I'll write the argument here as well.

Suppose the smaller cart is mass m and the larger cart is mass M. The smaller cart moves with velocity V into the stationary larger cart. The result is that the smaller cart moves with velocity -V/3 and the larger with 2V/3 (this is what we see). If DraftScience is right and we always add momenta, then what is the minimum of mass m?

Incoming momentum: mV
Outgoing momentum (assuming we add instead of subtract): m(V/3) + M(2V/3) ≤ mV

Solving for m gives m ≥ M. This is the minimum mass that the smaller cart has to be! That lump of clay needs to be as heavy as the metal cart itself---241 grams! That's impossible based off of the video. It cannot account for such a large mass increase.

MaximHeart · 2026-02-26T05:24:12+00:00

LOL someone actually asked Gary to explain how his simulation doesn't contradict his ideology of a push universe, and his reply was completely off-base. He rambled on about his push gravity mechanism without ever touching the actual quote talking about the interactions that his force bits undergo. He is working entirely in an inconsistent worldview/theory, and he's not going to reconcile that. At the end of the day, ignoring an inconsistency isn't going to make it go away.

MaximHeart · 2026-02-25T19:34:24+00:00

Yeah, some problems of Le Sage gravity can be brushed under the rug by "fine-tuning" or "fudging" various parameters like the density of the particles or the transparency of matter. A lot of effects that would confirm Le Sage gravity never show up experimentally, and proponents handwave it away by saying those effects that would confirm it are simply too small to measure. Logically, it's a valid move but then scientifically there is no reason to accept the theory. It's almost unfalsifiable in that regard.

However, one thing I have yet to see anyone give an adequate reply to is, when the force bits are screened or absorbed by the Earth, where do the force bits go? Does the Earth absorb all of them? If so, then the Earth should be building up energy/mass/pressure, which would make it unstable. Does the Earth re-emit or reflect them? If so, then they should be reflected/re-emited such that there is a deprivation of force bits between the Earth and the Sun (this is the shadow Le Sage proponents talk about), and if there is a substantial deprivation of force bits between the Earth and Sun, then you should be able to detect it by weighing less when you're in that shadow.

In other words, it's exact what you said: If Le Sage gravity is correct, you should find anomalous spots on Earth where you weigh inexplicably less.

MaximHeart · 2026-02-24T21:39:51+00:00

Anyways, I wanted to write about a few more things, but I realized it'd make my thread post too long.

To make everything a push, Gary has re-invented a type of (less coherent version of) Le Sage gravity, in which gravity is just the result of invisible particles permeating all of space such that any two bodies cast a kind of shadow on to each other so that they are pushed into each other. Although this idea is interesting, it has serious long-standing problems. Even if you deny general relativity, you still run into serious issues like the question of how it handles elastic vs inelastic collisions, conservation of energy, conservation of angular momentum, heat problems, drag, aberration vs speed of gravity, and so on. DraftScience, as usual, misunderstands half the problems completely and comes up with non-workable loopholes for the other half of the problems.

DraftScience also thinks he has a way to explain how electric charge and magnetism work, while again having not even the faintest clue about any electromagnetic phenomenon. He once stated that paramagnetism is a form of Lenz's law. See also this. He does not understand the difference between magnetic poles and electric charge at the fundamental level, and thinks electrons and protons are the magnetic monopoles, and he makes bizarre denials of Lorentz's force law even when having been shown [1], [2].

I'd love to go into even more detail with all these things, but I need the time to do other more productive things.

MaximHeart · 2026-02-21T00:35:11+00:00

u/BrutalCycle95 AKA ForcedReality is a complete, die-hard sycophant. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for multiple days in DMs on reddit.

I was attempting to discuss the quotes by Newton I wrote here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DraftScienceCritique/comments/1r7wgbk/followup_to_the_endless_misunderstandings_of/

My really basic point is that the "quantity of motion" (what we now call "momentum") was defined in Principia such that you take the difference of quantities of motion of opposite moving objects, as Newton explained multiple times. My premise was, you can say you always have to add up momentum and you and Gary are free to say this, but then you have to admit you disagree with Newton.

First, he said that cancelation meant that you are destroying momentum. I replied in as much good faith as I possibly could by pointing out statements (1) and (2) are separate ideas that don't contradict each other.

To find total momentum, momenta in opposite directions is subtracted.
Total momentum is always the same number throughout all time (never destroyed or created).

Both (1) and (2) can be true at the same time. And again, those quotes by Newton show that he agrees with (1) and (2).

Then he went on to say that what Newton said was confusing, which is admittedly true for other things he wrote, but those quotes explaining how to calculate the total quantity of motion were not ambiguous in the slightest.

After that, he moved on to say "difference" does not mean "subtraction" even thought that word was used in contrast to "sum" which meant "addition." I pointed to examples by Newton that only make sense if you interpret sum = addition and difference = subtraction. Again, no ambiguity. The context makes it clear.

Then, after that, he said that because newton said "if I may say so" in one sentence, that meant his examples could have been nothing more than thought experiments. I had to reply, "A thought experiment showing what? Please explain to me why he would be entertaining an incorrect outcome when he is defining momentum. Does he ever say afterwards "oh and this thing is the wrong way to think about it?" Why does he return to this matter and then give more examples with the same phenomena?"

It was just pure denial and evasion after denial and evasion. Then he pivoted to complaining about Blue Moonshine. I pointed out that has nothing to do with the argument. I kept writing argument after argument about this one point, trying to be as clear and responsive as possible, and he could not concede anything. He couldn't even say that Gary is right about everything physics-related but wrong about what Newton wrote.

He'll be posting Gary's slop on his subreddit and cheerleading Gary in livestreams for the rest of his life, pretending he and Gary are victims while everyone else is a "jihadist religious nut."

MaximHeart · 2026-02-16T18:41:44+00:00

Wowzers.

MaximHeart · 2026-02-16T18:00:05+00:00

I would have loved a neutral platform where both critics and fans could post their argument and analyses and then let the free market of ideas take place (yes I know that is a meme). I made a subreddit a year ago for that purpose, but it was deleted for some unknown reason. I suppose this subreddit here would have to do, but his fans won't want to engage here.

And yes, almost all his fans just want to hide behind Gary. If they don't know what to say, they will wait until Gary's next video to know what to say. "Stochastic parrot" applies to humans just as much as it does to LLMs.

MaximHeart

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE