Live 5-21-26 : [86] Reddit PhysicsIsBadLogic ...100 = 200 science bs

Added: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]All right, should be making a video.

[00:00:02]draftphysics.com debatephysics.com.

[00:00:06]Yes, it's a little messed up because of a few videos that YouTube annihilated for no good reason. Uh, like always, they never have good reason to do anything they do. H because the world doesn't run on reasonableness.

[00:00:21]It runs on [ __ ] Uh, there's layers and depths of [ __ ] everywhere. And one of the bullshits is physics, okay?

[00:00:31]And it's got a lot of crap in it. Wave particle duality nonsense, antimatter nonsense, dark matter nonsense, tons and tons of nonsenses as theories. Bent geodessics causing the creation of motion in the universe, essentially free energy.

[00:00:54]Uh, and uh, 12 MV squared, the silliest, stupidest, most ignorant, most obnoxiously obviously incoherent and disruptive um, wooey religious concept uh, adopted by physics for no good reason. Not because of necessity. That is, nothing was broken and uh, it obviously fixed nothing. It made nothing work better.

[00:01:22]just made everything a mess uh because of some religious cook uh who wanted to prove uh he was right and Newton was wrong or something like that but for really no good reason and science still believes it. So 300 years zero evidence they still claim it. So the last video I was talking about the same subject. Uh [clears throat] you know 100 in you have a light object with 100 momentum. You hit a three times as heavy object you end up creating 150 momentum. So if it's 100 times heavier it's pointed out here uh you get almost 200%. So it's 200% the motion in the same direction and in gravity you're going to get it back. Now the fact is even without gravity you're going to get it back. So you can diagram it lots of different ways. Um, so let's see. I did it inside the the space shuttle thingy. Uh, whatever the space station thingy, whatever the hell they do now up there, whatever they have, whatever thingy they have to sit in to do their little love shack thing. Um just this like some kind of worst nightmare being locked in a box with three other [ __ ] [sighs] E no thank you. Uh anyway um so if you let's say you did it so so let's just say you take a heavy object like a 100 pounds and then you attach this u device to your um space shuttle whatever it is you're using. Okay. So it's going to create a fulcrum for you and that's it. So it's a a solid object.

[00:03:09]Okay. And basically all you're doing is saying okay let's we're not going to have a pendulum because we can't use gravity but what we can do okay so let me make this box bigger makes [snorts] sense is um you have to have drawing space right so this is the heavier weight 100 times heavier thousand times heavier it doesn't really matter and so we have a little point here and then we have it on a string and so let's just say we throw it in okay the little object the one% size object object and we put it in with a 100 mv. So that's its momentum. And we bang it into the surface. What's it going to do? By their theory, I'm going to get almost all of it. It's going to go right back and swing this way and hit on this side. And a tiny bit of velocity will be gained here.

[00:03:59]1,000th in the case of a heavy object. A thousand times heavier. So 1/ 1,000th of the velocity. So, it's going to hang around for a while because it's going to be going really slow compared to this speed. This speed will be really slow.

[00:04:15]So, it's going to hang around for a while. So, this is going to swing around, hit again, and give it another 200. So, I put in 200%, okay, the first time. And then, let's just say it's 180% the second time. And then the third time it swings down again, it's 160%.

[00:04:32]So you can see it adds up pretty quickly to 10 times the momentum I've given the object. So I started with just 100 and I end up with 1,000 mv, let's just say.

[00:04:47]And um that's free momentum. It's moving in the same direction I started with.

[00:04:52]It's free free free energy. It's stupid.

[00:04:55]It's incoherent.

[00:04:58]You know, physics can't allow that to be true. Okay. Uh, you should be able to know that and you should be able to know because levers and pulleys conserve momentum that I can use a pulley system or a lever system to convert this this big M.

[00:05:16]Okay. And small V. I should do a small V into back into Okay. The big V and the small M. Um, no problem. That's what those devices are professional at. Uh, all right. So, that's what we're arguing. Um, now the other example of that I was thinking about the Mythbusters video. Pretty, again, pretty decisive evidence. Um, you know, some [ __ ] commented about, well, did they test for heat? And I could ask that about every ballistic pendulum experiment ever conducted. Did they test they say there's heat? Do they ever test? No. So, if we're going to claim, okay, that something coincidentally causes the measuring device to fail entirely, like crushing doesn't work entirely, and then crushing clay doesn't work, you know, then we're sort of back to springs.

[00:06:14]And, you know, the sort of the simple argument is is the spring is just another crushable. And just like so if I hit a brick wall going 50 miles an hour, I crush a spring twice as much, you know, an amount. So this is 50 miles hour. And if I have two cars and hit each other, then they both crush the same amount. So I get the same 50 miles an hour for both of the springs. And the simple argument is if I have a spring in the middle, okay, it's going to be seeing a 100 mph, okay, difference, right? So one spring 50, two springs, you know, 50, same compression.

[00:06:58]But if I have one spring, it's only twice that compression, right? So it's only it's so so um no this is one unit of compression. This would be two units of compression.

[00:07:12]All right. So it's one or one or you know if I use two springs so the two cars crush each other. Or I put a crushable in between the two cars and make the cars uncrushable and let them crush the thing in the middle. They'll crush the thing in the middle twice as much. So that that's what'll happen with springs. So if I use springs, I know that you know one spring will compress, the other spring will compress just like they hit brick wall. So I hit a brick wall, I get the same compression they hitting each other. So that mythbusters essentially prove that experiment and the clear implication is though this is the key the key thing. This isn't crushed four times as much. This spring will not be four times as crushed. It's going be twice as crushed.

[00:08:01]And you you really think that's 4x oh the energy you you you know you you know even though you know you only put one unit in on one side and one unit in here you only have one unit of energy here and you only have one unit of energy here and you're telling me that when these two combine and I I collect them with one spring all of a sudden now I have four units of energy.

[00:08:30]You see where the whole thing collapses?

[00:08:32]Doesn't make any sense. How how can just changing from going from two springs to one spring mean that I go from two units of energy to four units of energy? I can't change how much energy there is by merely changing whether I collect the energy with two springs or one spring. It's like measuring something with two scales. If I have two scales and I measure the weight and the weight says one pound and one pound, it says one unit of energy, two units of energy. I can't put both the units on one scale and make it read four times the energy.

[00:09:10]It can't mean four times the energy.

[00:09:13]It's only one unit plus one unit. It's only two units of energy. Can't be four units of energy.

[00:09:20]So, this is called reasoning and logic.

[00:09:23]if you've never seen it before. And um their counterargument is some kind of insults, you know, that don't have anything to do with the subject. But they won't talk about this argument.

[00:09:36]They won't in any way counter the argument, explain how the Mythbuster experiments were all frauds or faked or phonied in some way or that there's an amazing coincidence and for some reason they didn't show the right results because the clay is amazingly got this weirdness where it fails right at this critical time and the car crushing stops being consistent exactly at the right moment, you know. Um again and they have no other you know they just make this claim that levers don't conserve momentum that somehow a one mass going 1.4 the velocity can make a two mass go one velocity that I can create free momentum using a lever. So they make all these arguments they have zero evidence and the evidence that exists very decisively says it don't happen. This don't happen. 1 + 1 does not equal four.

[00:10:41]It don't. Okay. I mean, I'm surprised I have to say this over and again, right?

[00:10:47]Spring 50 miles an hour. 50 miles an hour. These are two units of energy. One unit, one unit. Okay? It can't equal four units.

[00:11:02]Okay?

[00:11:04]uh when it crushes this, you know, when the spring compresses twice as much, it can't be four units of energy because twice as much as just this with one spring.

[00:11:14]Can you understand? It's the same experiment with just one spring.

[00:11:19]You can't make more energy by using one spring instead of two springs.

[00:11:25]That can't happen. Okay?

[00:11:30]Can Can you hear me? bad can't [laughter] happen.

[00:11:34]I mean, so this should be over. And yet they just keep dragging it up. They keep making these arguments as if they have some evidence on their side. Every ballistic pendulum experiment decisively proves them wrong. Every single analogy to space. Um, you know, there's no 25 times the fuel to go five times as fast.

[00:11:55]It doesn't happen anywhere. There's no evidence this nonsense is true. And yet every day, [laughter] you know, um that you have to do something like this, you know, I have to uh show you over and over again. Um uh how there's this cavern of difference you know between the function of my brain in terms of it able to add 2 plus two kind of logic and the majority of people who can't do that logic and I would argue they can't do it okay not because they're incapable of logic it's because they're overtly dishonest they don't intend tend to give a damn about the truth and only care about defending um dogma totem polls and getting me stopping me. That's their agenda. They don't have anything. They don't care about the world or human intelligence. Yeah. No, they just care about attacking me [sighs] because I have offended them in some way by saying something obvious like, "Oo, you be ugly." Yeah.

[00:13:26]Not allowed to tell people that. They get all buttthurted.

[00:13:31]All right. So, that's the Mythbusters one. Pretty good uh evidence. Yep. Yep.

[00:13:36]Yep. All right. But this is the one we want today. I thought I opened this already. Where the hell is it? I guess this is it here. Yeah. All right. So, we'll turn that on. Hopefully.

[00:13:50]Hopefully. Hopefully.

[00:13:54]That looks like it. Uh, yeah. I don't know. [sighs] Reddit has changed their formatting, which is kind of annoying.

[00:14:03]Uh, they're always doing some kind of [ __ ] right? Everybody's always trying some shy [ __ ] Yeah, it used to have something on. Now you got to sign in to, you know, have a rational view of the page, but whatever. Not my fault.

[00:14:18]All right. So, the video that this is related to, uh, I guess is can't be there.

[00:14:29]I can't even see that anymore. All right. Well, I just turn this off and well, it doesn't matter. Um, it's the, you know, the icon. It's from a video where I'm explaining how the 3:1 the one to three pendulum trick can't work.

[00:14:48]It's free energy. Okay? So, whether you're getting 200% or 150%, it doesn't matter. And everybody should be able to agree that if a car comes in going 150 momentums this way and another car has got 50 momentums that way, they can't hit each other and crush only 100. So if they're inelastic, they're not going to crush 100. They're going to crush 200 worth. And okay, if I did make them elastic, I'm not going to get just 100 out. I can't put 200 in and get just 100 to pop out. That's ridiculous.

[00:15:28]So again, it's this complete inability to reason and do logic and recognize, damn, you're going to need some good evidence to make that claim, right? If you're going to claim that somehow I can, you know, plow any amount of momentum in and as long as I subtract their momentum, you know, as long as like one of them has momentum to lose, I can lose half the momentum. I can have 200 go in, get 100 out. So I could have 500 in and 250 out, or I could have a million in and get only a half million out.

[00:16:04]You really think so?

[00:16:07]All right. All right. Anyway, Gary's FiveMinute Videos, volume 9 of 13. This is I can't really read this.

[00:16:15]I'm going make it bigger. How big a mess is it going to make? Oh, it doesn't look like it made that big a mess. Yeah, it's okay. All right. This is a continuation of a series I was doing, a five minute videos Gary posted about three years ago. Yes. And you know, three years. And there hasn't been a rational counterargument or destruction of any of those videos. The reasoning is still sound. They haven't dented it at all with any kind of credible experiments.

[00:16:43]It's just again this trickery. So they're relying on the fact that you can fool you can play with it when it's, you know, when it's when you're making the claim that it's twice as much. It's easy to fool people. But three times the fuel making nine times the energy. Four times the fuel making 16 time I mean when this quadratic increase thing goes all kinds of wacky it should be pretty clear [laughter] that that is not going to be supported by evidence. You're never going to show it taking 25 times the fuel to go five times as fast. It's just not going to happen. Uh, some might find it amazing that Gary ever did videos so short. Uh, given that most of his videos seem to be feature length. So again, yeah, and I only did it that way because you're babies and you can't handle reality. Reality is complicated and reality does have a lot of nuance. And uh, people should spend quite a bit of time discussing reality and and uh, the truth of it and getting it all right.

[00:17:45]But you can't handle the truth and you can't handle reality. So yes, everything has to be made concise or you can't even get people to look at the argument. So that's you're bad. I mean, it's on your side's bad that they won't even pay attention to the argument if you give it uh you know its fair half hour. Gary's entire argument collapses. So, so this is the same line he uses in every single one of these silly pointless diet tribes of nonsense.

[00:18:16]Uh, you stop letting him treat momentum like a scale or so. Again, this is just more baby talk about how somehow there's some sort of energy that doesn't have a direction. That somehow you can have motion in a nondirection.

[00:18:30]And it's not possible. It's just silly.

[00:18:32]There's no such thing as scalar energy, whatever the [ __ ] that would be. And all there are are vectors. And there's no such thing as a cancelled vector.

[00:18:41]There's no unmoment vector. There's no direction that's un. Okay? So, it's all positive. So, the bullet's positive energy. The recoiling gun is positive energy. There's no such thing as, oh, let's subtract the recoiling gun from the bullet and find out what the real energy was. We already know the real energy was both things moving because we know if we had the explosion in another circumstance where we had five or 10 bullets, you know, we had a we had a chamber and we shot pressure out 400 little guns all in different directions.

[00:19:16]We know that every single one of them would add up that the total energy of the explosive would be measured by measuring all the bullets, not cancelling the bullets.

[00:19:27]Same thing with a pool table. I mean, the fact that you have to make these arguments over and over again that if I break, you know, on a pool table, if I have the 15 balls there and I shoot the Q ball in and I break it, I can't make less energy. I can't make more energy.

[00:19:44]The their balls will go in o directly opposite directions and I don't get to cancel their direction. I don't get to pretend there was a positive vector and a negative vector. There's only positive vectors. There are no negative vectors.

[00:19:59]So, it's just nonsense. They're You're telling me that there's something called unmoment. I'm telling you there's no such thing as unmoment. Where did you get this idea that it's possible? I don't even think Alignet said those words.

[00:20:15]Every mystery he points to is something he manufactured. So, this is just waste of time. I mean, god damn it. the the the reality that you put 100 in and right off the bat you get 150 going the same direction is problematic. The fact that I can make it so I get the 50 back and it hits the same object again makes it even more problematic.

[00:20:39]Yeah, more obvious. The fact that you could do it on an air track where you actually hit the the three mass, have it automatically rebound and both carts will be going in the same direction. So you'll have 100 momentum go in this way and 200 momentum's going out that way.

[00:20:58]You'll have it's just it's silly to think this is how nature works. All right. Manufactur by refusing use the actual definition. So this is again what actual definitions of what? Your pretend physics stuff you claim to be true that isn't true. Oh okay. Well your actual definitions aren't based on any actual observations. Linets never observed uh a one mass going twice the velocity doing four times the I mean doing the same work as a four mass going one V. He never showed us the two things with different momentums doing the same work.

[00:21:36]Two things with different momentums doing the same work. They believe this.

[00:21:40]They believe it's possible. Can you just think of the logic for a minute? Two things with different momentum doing the same work. [laughter] Can you understand that? that that means that something with twice the momentum somehow completely has to fail to do to conserve its momentum because it's only going to do the work of something with one unit of momentum. Can can't you see how absurd that is? It's absurd [laughter] [ __ ] Anyway, definitions and the uh quantities he's talking about. So, this is just a lie that I'm cheating the argument. No way. I haven't cheated your silly claim at all. When it claims that a bouncing ball creates momentum. So, so again, I I'm claiming it creates momentum. I'm claiming you're creating more momentum in a system. I'm saying the bouncing ball has a system amount of momentum and you're doubling the amount of momentum or in some cases tripling, quadrupling um you know all the way up to 10 or 20 times the momentum. You're making free extra new momentum in the universe.

[00:22:54]He's ignoring the fact that the momentum is a vector and that the wall earth system absorbs the opposite impulse. So there's absolutely no infinence that it could absorb the momentum and you still get a reflection. So every case where I use an object in my real life, I throw a tennis ball at a wagon that has a a piece of wood and the wagon moves.

[00:23:22]Exactly how much the wagon moves is how much I'm not going to get back from the ball.

[00:23:28]So if I want to get almost nothing back from the ball, I just make the wagon move exactly how much the momentum the ball was carrying in the first place. If I transfer the momentum, I get nothing back. If I don't transfer the momentum, that is I don't give it to anything, I get a huge reflection. Those are the absolute facts here. And this [ __ ] is just again lying about that truth. He's not going to he's not going to do the truth any fairness here at all. The fairness is is that yes, you have to account for that real world experience that if I don't move the earth and instead I actually move the wall a little bit, then all of a sudden all of that extra momentum disappears, all of a sudden there is no 200% going forward.

[00:24:18]It won't happen.

[00:24:20]I won't get 100% reflection and 200% into the object. That will never happen. If the object moves, if the wall moves, I'm not getting 100% back. Fact.

[00:24:39]Ball momentum's change might be 2 MV.

[00:24:44]The ball's momentum change might be 2 MV.

[00:24:48]Well, that's just not true. The only thing changes is the direction that the ball's moving, you [ __ ] idiot.

[00:24:58]I mean, damn. I mean, it's so stupid.

[00:25:00]But the Earth gets minus 2 MV. So, so there's no 2 MV in the ball. Let's just understand the ball just comes back in the opposite direction. So, just like the lever, I can change the direction for without paying any price, right?

[00:25:15]Right? I mean, you can drop a two mass on a lever on one side and you can lift a two mass on the other side at the same velocity. So, let's not pretend there's anything miraculous about direction.

[00:25:27]So, again, this statement is again [ __ ] The ball's momentum change might be 2 mv. There's no change in momentum that's 2 mv. The ball only has 50 miles an hour. It only has a mass.

[00:25:40]So, it goes in, let's say, with 50 miles an hour. It comes out with 50 miles an hour. That's all the ball gets. So, [ __ ] you. You're a liar. Uh, but the earth gets minus 2 MV. So, again, there's no evidence the Earth got that. Okay. The only reason we he thinks something magical happened, it's not magical. I'm just saying if something doesn't move, it means you didn't absorb the energy.

[00:26:02]That's a simple truth. If it's not moving, it didn't absorb the energy.

[00:26:06]Unless you can show that it got hot or something else happened, there's no evidence that it absorbed the energy.

[00:26:11]then the energy is still in the universe somewhere and that's the reflection. You don't get a reflection if the energy is absorbed. Can I say that again? You don't get a reflection if the energy is absorbed.

[00:26:26]Is because he preturns the earth doesn't count. Now I pretend to know that the earth's surface is itself elastic and nothing moves the earth. It just pushes into the surface and the surface pushes back out.

[00:26:41]the pressure increase happens. The earth creates a higher pressure. The pressure pushes it back out like a balloon. Uh and it does not absorb any momentum. Uh physics doesn't share that performance.

[00:26:55]So it's there's no evidence of any performance. Right? So we know it.

[00:27:00]There's no physics that shows their truth. the mythbusters, all the ballistic pendulums, rockets in space, there's just no evidence that any of this crap the claim happened. There's no evidence the earth got moved when I threw a tennis ball at a brick wall.

[00:27:18]The same problem shows up in his Newton's cradle example. So there's absolutely no problem. All right. He keeps insisting that kinetic energy theory predicts 100 momentum forward and 50 backward. That's exactly what it does produce. So that claim is exactly accurate which is not something any physicists have ever claimed. So doesn't make any sense.

[00:27:43]It it's an absolute fact that that's what happens. Okay? You increase the momentum in one direction by hitting this heavier object. It goes away with a higher momentum and the energy comes back. You get some portion of it coming back in the same direction. Those are the absolute truth. So there's no denying the existence of momentum. All right? Uh kinetic energy doesn't predict momentum values. So we're not talking about what it's predicted. We're talking about the fact that there predicting an MV. When you predict an MV, you're predicting both kinetic energy and momentum. There's no denying that. So this is just word games, right? So anybody could just see. This is this is what people do when they're claiming to defend science and being reasonable and fair and honest. This is how dishonest they are. And they get away with it because they're saying what you want people to say, which is Gary sucks. So, because he's saying what you want to hear, you're going to let somebody lie so overtly about what the claims are.

[00:28:48]There's no way. Conventional physics actually claims it. Professor Leuen claims it. It's non-negotiable. He says that the 200 momentum goes in that you have increased the momentum.

[00:29:01]There's no denying it.

[00:29:04]All right. [clears throat and cough] Momentum conservation does. So, whatever this is, kinetic energy doesn't predict momentum values. Momentum conservation does. Well, it it's exactly the same thing. Like I said, you can't make kinetic energy without the MV. The MV is the core of it. So you can't pretend that you're not claiming an MV when you claim an MV squared.

[00:29:26]You just can't do that.

[00:29:29]Energy conservation gives you the second equation needed to solve the collision.

[00:29:34]So there's no second equation needed.

[00:29:36]None of this has anything to do with reality. There's two equations together give the exact velocities you see in the experiment. So this is exactly the lie.

[00:29:47]This is okay. So these experiments the simple truth is is that this energy is never collected in some collection form. Okay. So this is the racket. They do the the experiment with the stupid cars with the little tiny wheels and they cheat because the the faster car is hiding more energy. It has more capacity to exchange momentum than its linear motion because of the little tiny wheels and axles. The wheels and axles contain a bunch of stored energy. So, it's a deception. And then the air track, I pointed out all the flaws where they're blowing a bunch of air up, but the problem is if the cart tilts at all, it's an it's an exhaust and it creates more energy. So, if the carts when they hit each other tilt up, right, because you're hitting above the center of mass, then they're both going to gain a little bit of extra energy. So, again, it's always a fraud. And the pendulum ones done by um Despar. Again, the argument is he did every video in distortive vision. Um the parallax problems um no way to measure and his measurements were always [ __ ] He couldn't just measure the speed of a pendulum, you know, and then find the distance the pendulum moves to go half that speed and show us those two videos.

[00:31:10]couldn't do something that simple as a reference to make the rest of his conversation meaningful because then you could superimpose that over the actual experiment. You could see whether it's moving the same distances. But he couldn't do any of these things the right way. He always has to do the experiment in a cheat way. But anyway, uh these two equations together. So, so, so there's no this isn't real physics, okay? It's just a canard. And unfortunately people like professor Leuen uh you know actually did try to do the experiment and you can see that he had to try really hard. He had to contrive the solution because when he did honestly it didn't work. So in the case where he did the experiment but there was no spring no giant funky weird looking springs and um the Velcro didn't stick right. uh the answer comes out completely different. You know, momentum is conserved.

[00:32:10]So, the whole thing looks quite fraudulent. It's got clay blobs smeared all over the carts, all kinds of crap where it's quite reasonable to question why. And uh you know, why is it arranged that way? Including the 1:3 mass ratio case he uh films. So, I don't know who films that one.

[00:32:32]No.

[00:32:34]uh his 75% one way, 25% the other split is just a number he likes the sound of.

[00:32:42]No, it's makes perfectly good sense.

[00:32:44]Then if you understand that only 75% of the momentum of the velocity went forward, 75% of momentum and 25% is the reflection, then when they come back together, you can understand why you get 100 out again.

[00:32:59]So it works perfectly. It's perfectly sensible. The momentum theory works, not something derived from any conservation law. So, of course, it's conservational.

[00:33:11]You take 100, turn it into 75 and 25, and then you take 75 and 25 and put them back together again. Their theory is that you took 100 and you made 150 and 50, and then you put 150 and 50 together again, only came out with 100. That's their theory. Obviously, that's not conservational.

[00:33:35]All right. His complaint that energy disappears and reappears.

[00:33:40]Duh.

[00:33:41]I I mean, [laughter] you know, can there really be an argument against it? You must admit that's exactly what your claim happens. The kinetic energy isn't doesn't exist and then it does exist and then it doesn't exist. Right? So I'm going from 100 in 100 K 100 momentum.

[00:34:00]Then I got I got 150 momentums and 50 momentums. Then 150 and 150 crash again.

[00:34:07]I get 100 again. You I mean how can you say it doesn't disappear? At one point I have two objects in space moving with a total of 200 and the next minute I only have one object moving with 100.

[00:34:23]Clearly, that's more and less bullets in space. I have more and less moving objects, moving a velocity in space. All right?

[00:34:33]It's just him not recognizing that gravitational So, this isn't about gravitational potential energy. This is you can use anything. You use springs to store the energy. You're just saying that the gravity is going to allow you to recollect the energy. And that's all we're using gravity for. uh gravitational potential is part of the system. Uh of course I'm recognizing it.

[00:34:56]Why? How am I not recognizing it? The point is in one minute you have you have a total of 200 mv of potential energy and the next minute when the apex of the one mass goes up you only have 100.

[00:35:14]So you have 100 momentum of gravitational potential energy and then you have 200 in the next second and then you have only 100 again in the cradle kinetic energy becomes height then becomes kinetic energy again. So does that make any sense to you? Uh then transfers to the other ball so that and so on nothing vanishes. So clearly the two numbers the amount of momentum is constantly changing. It goes from 100 to 200 from 100 to 200.

[00:35:44]just a lie to say something else is happening. Uh nothing materializes. I don't know. Of course, you're making free momentum and then you kill the free momentum.

[00:35:56]150 hits 50 and produces 100. They're claiming that happens. A car crash. I can have a a a three times as heavy object going the same speed as a one unit of energy object and they hit each other. One with three times the momentum of the other one. And so their total momentum is twice the 100 they claim will pop out. Only 100 will pop out. 200 go in, 100 pops out. That's their theory. He's pretending it isn't their theory when that's explicitly what they're stating happens that you can start with 200 momentum into a collision and somehow only 100 will pop out.

[00:36:46]It's just the standard K equals PA exchange you get with any oscillator. So again, this is [ __ ] No oscillator does this. That's the whole point. If I make an oscillator, a lever oscillating, it won't oscillate with their numbers.

[00:37:00]It won't happen. I have to have a four mass going uh one V and a one mass going 4V to oscillate. A one mass going 2V won't oscillate. So again, it's just a lie. So this is just a flatout lie. Uh it's just a standard K minus P exchange you get with any oscillator. So obviously it's not there's no oscillator that does this 200 in, 100 out thing.

[00:37:29]200 in, 100 out. There's no oscillator doing that. He treats higher as if it isn't energy. So again, this height again is just time. So again, the argument is it's just time being affected by gravity. That's all the height is. So when K becomes P thinks it's gone missing. It's has nothing to do with the argument at all. It has to do with the fact that you're creating free momentum and then you know pretending you know the free momentum you can make it disappear.

[00:38:03]Let's see if there's any comments of any kind. It's worthy of my attention. [sighs] Uh let's see how do I do that. I guess I hit this.

[00:38:15]Yeah, it doesn't look like there's anything there. Nope. Nothing there.

[00:38:19]Let's see. Six viewers. Well, that's better than Well, that's about average.

[00:38:25]I think this is the one I want.

[00:38:28]Nope. I guess it's this one.

[00:38:31]All right. The final flourish. Clearly, it's only 100. Let's see if this is showing that. Yes, it is. Uh, clearly it's only 100 momentums. So, again, we know it's 200 m MVs moving. Uh, and then there's only 100 MVs moving. Uh it's just him adding uh magnitudes and ignoring signs. Oh, [ __ ] It's them ignoring the fact that you can't create cancelling directions. There's no such thing as a direction cancellation. I can't hit two objects and have their energy in opposite directions cancel.

[00:39:14]If you have plus 100 and minus 100, the total is zero. So there's no such thing.

[00:39:18]There's no event that ever zeros. So, we know if I do the elastic collision of 100 in and 100 in, I get 100 out and 100 out. And we know if I do inelastic, I don't get zero. I get a whole bunch of heat and twisting and turning. So, we know that there's a whole bunch of internal motions that'll add up to the same 200. So, I know I can't change the momentum number. So, you're just a liar.

[00:39:43]There's no such thing as a zero. So, show me the zero collision. Show me where you have 100 in and 100 in and you get zero out because you know that doesn't exist. They know it doesn't exist. It can't exist in the elastic collision. And it can't ex if I take two steel balls and I crash them into each other with a piece of paper in between.

[00:40:03]Bang. And I hold them, they'll burn the paper. That's an experiment been done. I can show you that if you need to see it.

[00:40:12]So, it's just a fact. You can't you you can't get rid of it. You can't have zero. It's going to be automatically converted into pieces moving. But you can never change the amount of MV. It was 200 in. It's going to be 200 out.

[00:40:30]There's no cancelling. The total is zero, not 200 momentum. So it's just absolute nonsense. There's no such experiment where you get zero out. He keeps throwing away the directional information. I keep claiming the obvious that there's no such thing as directional cancellation. A bullet going this way does not cancel a bullet going that way. Both of them will kill people.

[00:40:56]And then acting shocked when the arithmetic doesn't behave. So there's no such thing as anything.

[00:41:02]There's no rational arithmetic except their notion, their idea that they have such a thing as a negative direction.

[00:41:09]that there's such a thing as unmoment that because of direction I can make unmomentum.

[00:41:16]There's no such thing in the universe.

[00:41:19]That's why he thinks kinetic energy is cheating something creating something.

[00:41:24]Well, it's obviously he's deleting half the data. So, that didn't delete anything. So, again, it's just a lie.

[00:41:30]I'm not uh dismissing or saying something didn't happen. I'm clearly illustrating exactly what happens. I've clearly drawn it. So you're just such a terrible liar.

[00:41:41]Uh in the end he's trying to replace two equation system. So there's no two equations. What they did was they made mv equal to 12 mv^2 and said that makes sense. Two things that can't possibly equal each other. And they put an equal sign between them. Uh momentum conservation plus energy conservation.

[00:42:02]Right? You can't conserve both.

[00:42:05]If I change the mass, it's impossible to conserve both. So it's it's just a fact.

[00:42:12]If you if you move the energy from one mass to a different mass or from more masses, then you can't possibly conserve both.

[00:42:24]Mathematically, it can't happen. I mean, again, I shouldn't have to argue that.

[00:42:29]That's just an absolute fact of their own math. All right. Anyway, it's just so bad. uh with one equation system momentum only and then he supposes when the universe refuses to simplify itself to match his preferences. So there's absolutely no need for me to simplify me having to pref is this science worked for thousands of years. The law of the lever worked.

[00:42:53]Hook's law worked for hundreds. Um again they broke rational physics and turned it into irrational mush.

[00:43:02]All right. every contradiction he points to is something he introduced by uh misusing the quantities involved. So I didn't abuse any quantity. I didn't cheat these arguments in any way whatsoever. It's just an absolute lie that I have misdescribed what happens in the experiment by their claims.

[00:43:25]Once you treat momentum as a vector and energy as a scalar. So again, just more nonsense talk like somehow a object moving is [laughter] some kind of detectable scalar thing when uh no it's an object moving. That's all it can be.

[00:43:44]It can't it can't be scalar moving versus vector moving. It can just be a mass moving. Again, this idea that somehow because it's moving this way and something else is moving that way that they have canceled each other in some bizarre way is idiotic.

[00:44:02]All of his objections evaporate. So, none of them been evaporated. And the experiment behaves exactly the way the standard equation says it should. So, it doesn't that's the big lie that when this experiment is done well, uh, that fact will be proven. So, physicist Michael was supposed to do the big Newton's cradle experiment. Uh, he bought the parts. Uh, he wasn't getting the results he wanted. Uh, he claimed it was wobbling too much or some other [ __ ] and he just bailed entirely.

[00:44:33]Just never even said another word to anybody interested in the subject. Just left the building. Just bailed on the subject.

[00:44:45]All right. Gary spends 25 the energy shouting five times as loud. Well, baby talk. A good joke. Whatever. Although Gary has said that he only laughs at his own jokes. Proper narcissism there, I think. Yes. I only pay attention to my own reasoning and logic because none of you can do any of it. So, yes, everything. Uh there's just about anything I would do with a um I would prefer to do it with myself frankly than any of you.

[00:45:17]Uh so goofy. So I don't know who Chance Stallion. Is that what it says? Shallot.

[00:45:23]It's a shallot. So we know this is one of the um Brozo types.

[00:45:30]Uh Goofy is unable to understand what other persons are saying. So there's absolutely no evidence of what you're saying. What are you saying?

[00:45:39]Yo, that this isn't under contention, right? You're saying the three times massive object is moving with an MV that is 150% of what the one mass had. You're saying that's what happens. I'm not saying it. You're saying that's explicitly what happens, [ __ ] That's your argument, not mine. Just such a these are such liars, especially when the sentence contains logic. This is just ridiculous. Um, if this, then that. I don't even know why that would be included, but yes, that's obviously not much of a statement.

[00:46:21]Uh, it's not a statement at all. So, ablest astronomer. So, narcissist who thinks he's capable of something.

[00:46:30]Gary ignores vector operations. So again, I don't when they matter, like uh when you put five things in a jar and then you take three things out of the jar. I don't I don't um pretend there's still three things in the jar. I I recognize you took three things out and claims free momentum and thinks he has debunked something. I think it just obviously debunks your physics because it makes it free energy physics and that's the simple truth. Your theory doesn't make any sense because it can be converted into a free energy machine as I pointed out. I can just use a pulley or a lever and create this heavy mass moving with a much higher momentum and convert it into a small mass moving a very high momentum. again, you know, to conserve the momentum and I have a small mass when we have very high velocity so I can keep making more and more free energy when in reality all he did was build a silly straw man. So there's no straw man in the argument. So again he's saying so let's just understand this is how much they lie. Every [ __ ] thing they say is a [ __ ] lie. You go over and over this. This is three-year-old argument.

[00:47:47]Okay, he's claiming that I'm lying.

[00:47:50]Okay, by making this simple observation that this is what your your argument is.

[00:47:56]You go 100 mvs in. That's what you have.

[00:48:00]You're claiming I hit this mass and I get 150% of that, right? So that means 150 mv.

[00:48:09]All right? And then I get 50 back, which means in gravity, okay, I'm going to get the energy back to hit it again.

[00:48:17]And so then I'm going to have even more energy moving in that direction in one direction.

[00:48:25]So and the heavier this object is, the slower it moves, the more times it's going to get hit. So I made the argument how you can build the machine that just keeps increasing the amount of momentum you're creating in one direction. Again, I could put it on an air track. Where's the lie here? Here's the three mass.

[00:48:43]Here's the one mass. I throw this in with 100 MV. This one has 150 MV. All right. And then it just goes into the rubber band and bounces right back. So now I have 50 going the same speed as this. Right. They're both going the same speed. No doubt about that. Right. Is that accurate or inaccurate? You're saying that when they fly apart, they're going the same speed. We are both agree on that fact that whatever the speed is, it's the same speed.

[00:49:14]So, this one is going to hit the rubber band and be following this one. So, you're going to have 50 MV going this way plus 150 MV. Okay? Going the same way. They're both going to be going the same direction. So, you're going to put 100 in this way and you're going to have 200 coming out this way.

[00:49:36]And you say that makes sense. And you say that's a lie. I've lied somehow. You [ __ ] piece of dirt. That's like I said, these people are so dishonest and yet you people support them in all these dishonest statements.

[00:49:50]I mean, you know that I didn't dishonestly represent what you're claiming and so you're just liars.

[00:49:57]Terrible, pathetic liars.

[00:50:01]All right, let's see.

[00:50:06]uh and thinks he has debunked something when in reality all he did was build a silly straw man. If he did the math correctly, he would realize that both energy and momentum are conserved in elastic collision. So as pointed out that's impossible when you convert the mass. So as soon as you change the mass, as soon as you put the energy from a light thing into a heavy thing or from a heavy thing into a light thing, you will not conserve both. It's impossible any and no textbooks can say you can conserve both in that circumstance. So go ahead and show me where they give you an illustration of that conservation because it's impossible.

[00:50:48]And that textbook physics works perfectly every single time. So it just I mean it's just a silly statement. It obviously doesn't work. That's why there was clay smeared all over Professor Lewen's cart. Let's see. Simply is too stupid to understand why 10 momentums to the right and five momentum's to the left. Total momentum is five to the right. Yes, I'm too stupid to understand how you can possibly think it's possible to cancel momentum. Have a cancelling motion that you can make a motion in the universe. I can make motion and somehow it's undoing some other motion.

[00:51:24]Yeah, that's too stupid.

[00:51:27]His model literally can't um predict when direction a system goes after the collision. So again, this is such a lie.

[00:51:34]You're the one that doesn't have any evidence for your theory. Your theory says uh you know somehow the kinetic energy matters coming out of a rocket engine and there's absolutely no evidence the kinetic energy can matter at all. You can't gain anything from it.

[00:51:49]You can't do anything. You can calculate it all day long. You can play your oberth effect all day long. And the simple truth is all you're ever going to do is produce momentum out one end and you're going to get an opposite momentum going the opposite direction. And that's all you'll ever do is collect the [ __ ] momentum. You will never collect the kinetic energy.

[00:52:10]All right. Really is amazing. It's something that the average kindergarter can probably understand. So, all right.

[00:52:16]So this is just too ridiculous, isn't it? So if really if we did a man on the street and we asked people on the man on the street, does it take five times the fuel to go 25 times the fuel to go five times as fast? You really think they're going to answer, oh yes, I said, oh yes, I've experienced that every time I go to the gas station, let alone a high school student. Uh let alone a Nobel Prize winner. Gary likes to talk about how he's going to win a Nobel I probably won't because I'll be dead and they won't give it to dead people. But the fact is I'll win something better than that, you know. But whatever. But for some reason, I don't rate his chances of that. Yeah. Well, whatever. For some reason, I think you're scum. And I do believe you will eventually. We will find you. We'll find where your where your cremation ashes were put and we'll have everybody go take a piss on it because whatever spot your scummy ashes are in or your silly [ __ ] decomposing uh body is, it deserves to be properly reacted to as the evil nasty pile of human garbage that you were.

[00:53:25]You are a really bad algorithm.

[00:53:28][laughter] Yeah. Although in fairness, he probably more likely of him ever publicly admitting that he's wrong about anything. Well, I mean, what's the difference?

[00:53:40]I'm You're not making it clear that I'm wrong about a damn thing with anything called credible evidence. So, that's your responsibility. And you failed decisively.

[00:53:52]So, your failure to prove me wrong is obvious.

[00:53:58]Okay. I'm still waiting for him to sue me. Haha. I don't know what you are and what you did, but whatever. Um, there's a thing say, you know, laughed the those who laugh last laugh laughed hardest. So, you know, wait your turn, [ __ ] You'll get yours. Uh, draft's own stupidity and ignorance creates his very own paradoxes that only exist in the warped mind. So, again, yes, it's only in my mind. I'm the only person that could figure this out. You're all the [ __ ] idiots. I'm a million times smarter than even Einstein, apparently.

[00:54:35]You know, because not even, you know, even one in a million people could probably figure out what Einstein did.

[00:54:39]But none of you morons can figure out that, oh yeah, it makes absolutely no sense to make some silly argument that takes 25 times the fuel to go five times as fast because it doesn't. It doesn't take 25 times the wattage to spin a motor five times as fast. There's no example that this [ __ ] happens. And it's just amazing that all you [ __ ] will defend it even though you've never seen it. No one's ever shown you any evidence of it and yet you believe that's disgusting that you're science defenders with that attitude.

[00:55:12]Let's see. It's like watching a dog chasing its own tail. Yeah, whatever.

[00:55:17]That's the kind of thing you would do.

[00:55:19]Yeah, that's kind of a myth anyway. Uh but whatever. You know, every now and then they have to go bite a a bug in their butt and they'll be chasing that.

[00:55:29]But uh anyway, why you people really are just so disgustingly dishonest? Just disgusting.

[00:55:39]All right, so do I need to do anything else? I guess not. So, let's see if there's any comments and we'll get the hell out of here.

[00:55:47]Nope. No comments. Amazing. Not amazing, but you know, disappointing. and disappointing and amazing. Yeah, those are probably the same word nowadays.

[00:55:57]Uh anyway, [clears throat] I don't think I need to make any further. I mean, I thought the argument about doing it in this, you know, the fact that you could make a pendulum, you know, without gravity, you know, like in the space shuttle, technically you could throw something on a string and make it spin in a circle, but if you have it hitting something and reflecting, it'll just do this. So by their theory, that's what you could do, you know, is like the anvil experiment, right? So you could Yeah, I might as well draw that.

[00:56:33]I mean, I drew it already, but I might as well emphasize it because it it's such a simple experiment. You're saying, "Well, why didn't they ever do this one?"

[00:56:43]Um, you know, because it really would be interesting to see.

[00:56:49]Um, yeah. So, I'm thinking you could attach it right to [laughter] Yeah. I mean, I don't think there's any law against it. Um, you know, but you could just I mean, technically, you could attach the string right to the hunk of steel or whatever you had, you know, the the 200 pounds or something. Okay. And then you have a ball bearing on a string, right? Attached right to the the weight.

[00:57:25]Yeah. And so the idea would be is you throw it in. Okay. And it reflects because this is hardened steel. So it's hardened steel surface. And so Steve Mold produced this experiment where it got to bounce 250 times. and going this way, right? It wouldn't matter like it would go slower, but it couldn't it wouldn't uh stop, you know, it's not doing the up and down bouncing, right?

[00:57:54]So, it has to bounce slower. So, it would have to be the pendulum would have to move slower, but it would just keep doing it, right? It would hit the surface and then bounce. The string would be under some tension, but that's, you know, a tiny, you know, fulcrum issue. again tiny amount of energy lost.

[00:58:14]It comes back, hits the object on this side, then bounces back, hits the object this side, bounces back. And so instead of bouncing less high, okay, which it can't do, it would just keep doing this over and over and over again, and it would just be slower. So as it started to lose a little bit of energy from air resistance and whatever heat it was creating whatever tiny amount again 256 times is is how many times Steve Mole got to bounce but wouldn't that be interesting just to see how fast it goes you know and just watch that oh yeah it's getting really slow really slow but it's going to be traveling the same path damn interesting frankly So how hard is this experiment to do, right? I I mean to build this is not [laughter] this this wouldn't cause right. So we have a ball bearing and we have a weight that's at least 100 times okay 100x the weight. So that's the the only rule. So you could have something that weighs, you know, half an ounce, you know, and so you don't have to make things too outrageously heavy. And you just attach it and it's a hardened surface.

[00:59:31]It's not an expensive experiment at all, right?

[00:59:37]Yeah. So, um, you know, wouldn't it be interesting to just sit there in the space shuttle and start it and just see what it does, right? Will it will it start gaining more and more momentum in this direction? You know, it gets hit this way and it turns a little bit that way and then it turns a little bit this way. So it wobbles a little bit, but it [clears throat] just keeps going faster and faster and faster in that direction.

[01:00:09]Anyone willing to draw this and explain what they say is going to happen?

[01:00:16]What's your prediction?

[01:00:22]What's your science say? What does science say?

[01:00:27]Yeah. What? Wait, what does Can we get Valerie to give us an opinion? What does Valerie think will happen?

[01:00:36]How many times will the little ball been bent bearing go back and forth? Uh, you know, and how much energy will the object absorb.

[01:00:54]Obviously, I'm arguing that it's going to be no bounces at all, right? I mean, the first bounce is going to be feeble because you're going to give like 70% of the momentum to the big heavy thing and so you're going to get a very weak reflection, you know, and so you get a little tiny bit over and eventually you just have all the energy be going this way and the little thing will stop moving. It'll just be sitting out here.

[01:01:16]So, it eventually'll just run out of gas. it'll just be hanging out.

[01:01:21]And this will have all the momentum.

[01:01:24]This will have the 100 mv. So if you start with 100 mv in, you'll just have one big object moving with 100 v uh um with a total this object tied to that object. The whole giant mass will be moving one 100 mv.

[01:01:46]So it' be moving if it's 100 times as heavy, it'll be moving 101 times slower. Yeah. 101 times slower.

[01:01:58]That's my prediction. What's yours?

[01:02:03]Gutless pieces of human garbage. What's your predictions?

[01:02:08]Sucky lying pieces of crap. What do you predict?

[01:02:13]Yeah.

[01:02:15]Okay.

[01:02:20]Will there be anything responsive to anything stated in this video?

[01:02:27]The simple answer is no.

[01:02:32]Because no one can show any integrity.

[01:02:35]None of these science defenders can show anything called integrity.

[01:02:43]These are all lying pures.

[01:02:48]All right. Anyway, uh so till the next time and such and so forth and whatnot, I