|
|
     
. . .
  Professor Dave Explains is such an ASShole Dave, I recently rediscovered your Channel (made a video response to a two slit video years ago) and figured it couldn't hurt to try again to solicit your attention to some Physics subjects that I think need exposure. For years I have attempted to solicit the attention of a qualified physicist or science presenter on YouTube. I have offered substantial Financial incentives to have my arguments fairly debunked/refuted. Unfortunately I have found the Integrity of the science to be as low as the Integrity of the scientists. As you seem to enjoy testing and mocking dissident theories I hope to persuade you that I merit attention. I don't like having to offer scientists money to defend their science, but I certainly haven't found any that it will do it for free. Regardless, the fact that I'm willing to pay you for your time to counter and make fun of my arguments certainly should speak to my sincerity, and my entitlement to have my "misunderstandings" corrected. I'll accept debate in any form I can get it... Just play a 5-minute video of mine, make some kind of video response, or a real live debate. If interested let me know what kind of compensation you believe is fair. As a heads up I intend to make a few videos responding to a few of your videos the first one is posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLEMZTrgxgs Thanks for any time you're willing to devote to considering my offer, Best regards and such, Gary DraftScience Dave: I will gladly debunk this flaming pile of hot garbage from an insane person for $5000. Thanks for the response. Just so there's no misunderstanding I would like to clarify what I get for the $5,000. Is this for a live debate or just a video response. How long a video can I make that you will respond to? Although your fee seems inflated Beyond Reason the fact is I have offered a few of your colleagues almost that much. Please let me know what I will get for the money, and I'll start working on raising it. Dave: I will make a thorough video explaining in great detail how everything you said in that video is objectively wrong and profoundly idiotic. Or another one of similar length. The fee is large because you are totally insane and not worth anyone's time or attention. To be clear I only really want to argue physics subjects like the nature of gravity (on the surface of Earth 9.8m/s per ONE second) kinetic energy vs. Momentum... MGT versus mGH etc. I like to narrow the debate to examination of the quality and volume of the evidence. I certainly could fill an hour video with lots of subjects but I would prefer we start with something of a narrower scope at perhaps a more moderate price. All I need you to do is show me some credible hard evidence proving any one of my assertions wrong ...For example just show me one thing that requires 25 times the fuel to spin five times faster. I think I can illustrate pretty firm paradoxes in the physics you defend in less than 15 minutes. How much would you charge to play that 15 minute video interjecting at your discretion? Dave: To be clear, you're totally delusional and not worth even the time I've spent responding to your ramblings thus far. $5k. Well as a last effort to get some sort of reasonable reply. How much would you charge me to have you say these words in a video: "I have been asked how I would defend the fact that science says it takes 25 times the fuel to spin a motor five times as fast, how would I defend this rather extraordinary claim, as it comes with no even ordinary evidence? I would defend it by pointing out that...."  Aerospace engineer Tom Stanton Does junk physics Email I sent: Tom, over the last few years I have attempted to engage science presenters in a conversation regarding what I would claim is a very undeveloped area of scientific understanding. Kinetic energy versus momentum. After extensive investigation of the history and experiments I am convinced that kinetic energy or the "living Force" is Fable not fact. It certainly would seem that you are convinced otherwise and if I must I am willing to pay you to "show me" why you are convinced. I've made this response video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tsHa2vekC4 offering more details regarding the help I am requesting you provide. Thanks for any consideration you are willing to give to this matter, Best regards and such, Gary DraftScience NO RESPONSE RECEIVED AND MY RESPONSE VIDEO LINK IN HIS COMMENTS WAS DELETED.  Dr. Michael Koop Teaches junk physics  Email sent To DR. Angela Collier NO RESPONSE RECEIVED AND MY RESPONSE VIDEO LINK IN HER COMMENTS WAS DELETED. To DR. John re: Kinetic Energy vs Momentum Dave Drumm ....Understanding Physics by Dave ...Another bad example of Scientist He replies with this dialogue in the comment section: understandingphysicsbydave1349 and Thomas Young came up with 1/2 mv^2 you should do some research DraftScience Can't say this is much of a response, but I'll take what I can get. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was the first to publish the theory of a "living Force" (vmv) a few months before newton published the principia. The 1/2 was added when the work equation was developed w=fd. I haven't misquoted the history and it's absolutely a fact that Newton directly opposed any Square velocity mechanics. Newton believed force was effectively the same thing as momentum and that you could directly convert one into the other. Just as a curiosity, how much would I have to pay you to actually address the arguments made in the video? DraftScience I am quite sincere regarding paying you for your time. If you can quote me a reasonable price for you making a half hour video refuting the arguments in my video I will fairly compensate you for your "tutoring assistance"/time. understandingphysicsbydave1349 If you look at my channel you will see it is there to help students through their Advanced Level Physics course (ages 16 to 18). I have been a physics teacher for 40 years and my students, and others, appreciate what I put online. The content is the accepted specification. I appreciate that scientific knowledge has developed over time and, along the way, there have been conflicting views but this channel is not intended as a forum to discuss these. Doing so here may confuse my students. I welcome criticism of the way I teach things and always own up to mistakes. There are a number of excellent channels where the evolution of the accepted dogma is discussed, such as https://www.youtube.com/@Weirdly_wonderful understandingphysicsbydave1349 i like the lion and i like your hair. this video is an introduction to students who have not met this topic before. my video helps them. i dont think yours does DraftScience Isaac Newton was the father of gravitational Theory. Quoting him exactly: "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." Clearly Newton didn't believe twice the Force four times the energy. And if you cared about the truth or the intelligence of your students you wouldn't be teaching silly unevidenced Fables. Show some integrity and actually argue my arguments. Does a five mass going twice the velocity have twice the energy of a ten mass going half the velocity?.. Can you link to any evidence? I reply with this video: Joydeep Dutta ...A Dr. of rude insincerity He replies with this dialogue in the comment section: kamrupexpress I am not someone who just reads books and says something on the YouTube. I am a working Professor and I a mathematician, so please be sure if you have understood me before having a response video. I would also like to know your background in science. kamrupexpress Dear viewers please be careful of this channel. Does not appear to be a proper scientist. He is proving everyone wrong from Leibnitz to Neil de Grass Tyson. This is where my doubt starts. DraftScience It's unfortunate and disappointing that you won't deal with the arguments presented in the video as what they are just pure scientific arguments. Like michael Faraday I have no professional qualifications but I did spend years as a mechanic and a machinist designing industrial control devices. Regardless I have spent the last 10 years devoted to researching the subjects and will pay you a bounty if you can find any quotes of mine that can be fairly described as misinformation. Seems to me you're the one showing some duplicity. You claim science is open to new ideas yet you demonstrated exactly the opposite. kamrupexpress Yes I am open to ideas and those ideas must be backed by solid evidence and in physics an unambiguous mathematical framework must be provided. I am sorry it must be my shortcomings but I couldn't understand your explainations of Newton's laws. For this moment let me stay with my understanding which may be wrong but as I have tried to learn them from indeed very good books and physicist friends. However it appears to me as of now the current understanding of Newton's laws works pretty well. I of course wish you all success in your endeavour and may be in future your ideas in physics will be at the center stage and I will be open to that. Meanwhile I am very uncomfortable in interacting with someone who comes under a pseudo name and is not open about his identity. As a practising mathematician my request would be to publish your research findings in the top journals of physics like Physical Review. Unfortunately I believe my own capability in science is much poorer than you so it will be futile on your part to interact with a nobody like me. So thanking you for your kindness I would like to close my interactions with you. DraftScience I have attempted communication with you in a fair and considerate way. Just as you slander Newton you now slander me with claims that I have not done diligent research and detailed the facts accurately. Yet you provide no quotes, you provide no evidence, that I have done any disservice to science or any scientist. As stated you are again proof that science is cement headed and pig-headed. That they will have to be dragged to the truth like the ignorant masses they deceive and mislead. You whine about a couple of trolls in one of your videos yet you don't understand why somebody might wish to keep their personal information off the internet. In America, crazy science "Defenders" will in fact harass the sanctity of your home and your family to attempt to extort you off the internet. You really are profoundly ignorant... Maybe you should just safely twiddle your thumbs somewhere and quit pretending you can have an intelligent conversation. May you get what you have earned. I make a video going over the issues he dismissed as being beneath his consideration. DraftScience vs Debunked ... Bullets and balls and such DraftScience vs Physics Made Easy 
AB Science or FeCoNi Science talks junk physics 
SciManDan is just a cheap shot bully The physics described by most scientists today isn't just unscientific (proclaimed without evidence) it is illogically full of unresolved paradoxes and contradictions. The Universe runs on Energy and conventional physics doesn't understand any aspect of it. |
|