|
|
    
re: response to Steve moulds video
Inbox Gary DraftScience Feb 1, 2025, 10:41 AM to Paul.Nord Just a heads up... I have posted a response to your response to Steve moulds video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_mriuD1In8 For some 10 years I have been trying to get physicists to discuss/debate/argue physics Concepts. Unfortunately I have not been able to find anyone interested, even in some cases after offering thousands of dollars. I think many of the "conclusions" physics proclaims are not well enough evidenced for the degree of confidence. I would certainly like to hear some of your opinions on some of the foundational subjects... Like the kinetic energy theorem which I would claim is little more than completely unevidenced fable. Anyway thanks for making the video and best regards and such, -Gary DraftScience Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould's Show and Sell Science vs REAL SCIENCE Paul Nord Feb 2, 2025, 2:00 PM to me Thanks for sharing. I haven't watched all of what you've posted. It's a lot. Newtonian Physics is pretty well established. The predictions it makes are quite useful. I don't think that you're going to get much engagement probing questions of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. You do raise an interesting question about the competing concepts of momentum (mv) and energy (mv^2). These debates are as old as Newton and Leibniz. You may enjoy reading about the Vis Viva Controversy. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 2, 2025, 2:47 PM to Paul I'm quite aware of all the details... I might suggest you read up on the subject as no credible experimental evidence has ever been produced to defend mV squared. What experiment has you so confident? Do you think calculations of the kinetic energy of thrust landed us on the moon? Do you think 4 lb dropped 1 ft creates the same impulse energy as 1 lb drop 4 ft? Kinetic energy fails the lever test, fails the ballistic pendulum, fails crashing cars, fails moving Rockets, even fails simple tug of wars... Telling me the Dogma is true is just double Dogma. Paul Nord Feb 3, 2025, 2:07 PM to me Gary, You might get more engagement with academics if you were a little more gentle. I don't think that most people are going to feel quite so passionate about debating whether mv or 0.5*mvv is the more fundamental quantity. I don't mean that to sound mocking. But university faculty are a pretty boring bunch. I enjoy confusing them too with examples that seem to defy physical intuition. Steve's lever example is one of those. He used the static equations to say something about the dynamic equations. The experiment with the longer lever will take a longer amount of time. Steve missed that. He should not be surprised that a rocket firing for 1 second will impart more energy than a rocket firing for sqrt(2) seconds. In our lab we hang weights from a pulley to drag a "frictionless" air cart along by a string. By moving masses from the cart to the hanger on the string we change the net force on the system while keeping the total mass the same. The velocity of the system is predicted precisely by the change in potential energy of the system. 0.5*M*v*v = mgh. Here 'm' is the mass on the hanger and 'M' is the total of the mass of the cart and the hanger. (Actually, this experiment is a very close analogy to Steve's confusion. The total kinetic energy needs to be conserved. His magical massless rocket confused his intuition. He can't calculate the work done on the rocket if it has no mass. Also the animation showing the rocket moving at a constant velocity did not help either.) When we roll a ball down an incline and predict how far it will launch from the end, the velocity at the end is predicted precisely by modeling the potential energy change and the energy that goes into the rotational energy of the ball. We can hit a mark on the floor within 1%. That one comes up a little short which is probably due to the frictional energy losses as the ball clatters down the incline. But it might be slipping. And it might be the existence of air bubbles inside the delrin balls which would give them a slightly lower moment of inertia than predicted by the model. You're welcome to throw out classical mechanics and create your own. But be aware that you'll need to explain the experiments that I just described and many more. Now that you've got me thinking about it... I'm really surprised that Steve was able to confuse Minute Physics. I do agree that the Attwood's machine is the better model for seeing the lever problem more clearly. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 4, 2025, 12:49 AM to Paul Paul, If you watch the first 7 minutes of my latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzlHYMXyR_A I explained the "real" dynamics of the mgh pulley experiments. I'll take care of the angular momentum ramp experiments in the next video. Just for clarity, you agree with Steve mould that levers don't conserve momentum? You don't think a one Mass going 1 velocity can produce through Leverage a half Mass going 2 Velocity? Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould says Levers No Work Paul Nord Feb 4, 2025, 4:45 PM to me No, I believe that Steve is mistaken about interpreting his calculations. Momentum and Energy will both be conserved. He's failed to model a real physical device pushing the other end of the lever. And he confused a bunch of people in the process. That's exciting. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 4, 2025, 11:12 PM to Paul "Momentum and Energy will both be conserved." I can find no way to interpret this as a reasonable statement... Especially in the case of the lever. In the provided example there are only two possible outcomes... The half mass leaves with 1.4 the velocity and momentum isn't conserved OR it leaves with twice the velocity and kinetic energy isn't conserved. Can you show an example where both are conserved? Paul Nord Feb 5, 2025, 1:44 PM to me Before opening with, "how can you possibly think that momentum and energy are conserved," perhaps you can show me your calculations. Do you have some diagrams or equations that you've used to work through this problem? If you really do want to undermine the whole body of knowledge in the physical sciences, please take a moment to do the calculations from the perspective of your classical mechanics textbook. If we can design an experiment that shows a contradiction I promise that I'll meet you in Oslo for our Nobel Prize. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 5, 2025, 2:13 PM to Paul Well, again, you have been totally unresponsive to anything I wrote. Put simply I merely asking to see the evidence that has you so confident. You use the word "classical" as if that isn't part of the dispute... 350 years ago an argument started between leibniz and Newton... MV versus MV squared... You're claiming that classical mechanics is leibnizian mechanics... I am arguing leibniz didn't win the argument with evidence and I have no good reason to agree with you that Newton was wrong. For 350 years you're kind has been saying 4 lb dropped one foot is the same energy as 1 lb drop 4 ft... I've repeatedly asked for some physical experimental evidence and you can provide nothing. Newton's basic equation was force equals momentum. (Twice the force twice the velocity three times the force three times of velocity) if the word energy had existed i'm quite certain he would have said Force equals energy. If the word work had existed i'm sure he would have stated that all motion is created by having a force do work on it. I've clearly pointed out that I think MGT defines the energy from Gravity. This argument isn't about equations it's about "what is conserved" ..i'm plainly challenging you the show experimental evidence demonstrating kinetic energy being conserved in any circumstance where energy is being transferred between unlike masses. You have provided nothing. Paul Nord Feb 5, 2025, 2:18 PM to me Ok, so I'll respond to what you've said: That's all wrong. Please show me your calculations. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 5, 2025, 3:47 PM to Paul What do you want calculated? I'm claiming in all interactions MV (in) equals MV (out). I'm claiming that gravity is a time-dependent force and if you want to know how much force something has collected in free fall the formula is MGT=E. You are just being evasive... One more time, does the half mass in steve mould's example leave with twice the velocity or 1.4 the velocity (assuming the same initial Force). If you agree it is twice the velocity you must concede that 1/3 the kinetic energy has been lost. Gary DraftScience Feb 5, 2025, 4:02 PM to Paul Sorry should have said you have gained twice the kinetic energy (Instead of that 1/3 the kinetic energy has been lost.) ... If you think it leaves at 1.4 then you have lost 1/3 of the momentum Paul Nord Feb 5, 2025, 4:57 PM to me I think that Steve's problem is a good starting point. Can you set up the equations in terms in your favorite scheme? We'll need some diagrams, vectors, masses, lengths, etc. Then we'll have something to discuss. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 6, 2025, 12:59 AM to Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZpFjMaATFo Attachments area Preview YouTube video Energy Dualism is bad science ...re. Paul Nord and Steve Mould Paul Nord Feb 6, 2025, 6:54 PM to me Gary, Your rotating unbalanced rod is a good concept to consider when talking about this problem. And I think that it's at the core of what Steve missed when he described it. The two masses are spinning around a common axis. Let's not worry about how they got there. The larger mass is twice the mass of the smaller. And the smaller one is twice the distance from the axis. If the circle swept out by the larger one has a circumference of 1 meters, the circle swept out by the smaller one will have a circumference of 2 meters. If it spins once per second, the distance traveled by the large one will be 1 meter in 1 second (with a velocity of 1 m/s). The smaller one will have a velocity of 2 m/s. I can calculate the momentum and the energy for each of those objects before you stop the stick. After you stop the stick, they will keep moving with those same velocities. And they'll move in a straight line. Each will therefore continue to have the same energy and the same momentum that they had before they were released. Do we agree up to this point? Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 6, 2025, 7:00 PM to Paul paul, I would agree with the clarification that the half mass is moving 2 velocity and the one mass is moving one velocity... The two objects have the same momentum, they do not have the same kinetic energy. Your obligation is to explain how the balanced wheel can have more kinetic energy on one side than the other. Paul Nord Feb 6, 2025, 7:10 PM to me Right. Nothing about this problem requires the energy of each of the two to be equal and opposite. The momentum of each is opposite. And the center of mass of the system will always be in the same place. Object A ------------ mass = 2 kg velocity = 1 m/s Momentum = 2 kgm/s Energy = 2 kgm/s^2 Object B ----------- mass = 1 kg velocity = 2 m/s Momentum = 2 kgm/s Energy = 4 kgm/s^2 Since momentum is a vector quantity, it will have a direction. Since they are always moving in opposite directions, the net momentum is zero. None of these numbers will change after the stick is removed. Do we agree? The total energy of the system is always 6 Joules. The total momentum is always zero. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 7, 2025, 2:16 AM to Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTu50uOILyc Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox free momentum video #14 Paul Nord Feb 7, 2025, 12:48 PM to me I don't want to spend another 30 minutes watching a video. Did you agree with everything I said in the last email, or no? Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 7, 2025, 2:32 PM to Paul Personally I don't think much of arguing physics in one minute videos and text threads... But whatever I agree that momentum is the same, and momentum is conserved. Clearly I don't believe kinetic energy is a real thing so I don't accept your energy= stuff This problem doesn't seem as complicated as you are making it... If you defend the 1.4 thing you are claiming momentum can be created and destroyed. Paul Nord Feb 7, 2025, 3:01 PM to me Great. Then we agree that the velocity of neither object changes when they are released. You're happy to compute mv and say that it does not change. I will go on and compute mv^2 and will claim that it also doesn't change. You are free to believe that this concept of "energy" is a fiction. But can you also agree that the math I've shown you so far checks out? I asked that you provide a specific physics problem to discuss. You suggested this situation of a spinning lever rotating about its center of mass and then releasing two masses. Now we've put some numbers and equations with that problem. And I think that we've agreed that the situation conserves momentum at all times. I've claimed that it conserves energy. You don't think that energy is a thing. But do you argue with any of the math we've discussed so far. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 7, 2025, 4:43 PM to Paul Yes two times one is the same as one times two... So what's the punchline how does 1.4 pop out Gary DraftScience Feb 10, 2025, 12:57 PM (13 days ago) to Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acF6QtyCIf4 Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox... Paul Nord response to me #16 Paul Nord Feb 10, 2025, 7:30 PM (13 days ago) to me Ok. If we continue with Steve's other thought experiment and consider two equal masses which are at equal distances from the axis moving at 1 m/s we get this: Object A ------------ mass = 2 kg velocity = 1 m/s Momentum = 2 kgm/s Energy = 2 kgm/s^2 Object B ----------- mass = 2 kg velocity = 1 m/s Momentum = 2 kgm/s Energy = 2 kgm/s^2 In this case, the total momentum still adds to zero. But now the total energy is 4 J, not 6 J. This is at the heart of Steve's mistake. It will take more energy to spin up the balanced lever when one of the masses is twice the distance from the end and half the mass of the other. His mistake is at about the 5 minute mark in the video. He claimed that the rocket would have the same experience, and therefore the same acceleration. It's a little more obvious if you try to look at the amount of energy input required to spin up a system with a mass on each end of the lever. He has no mass at the near end. So you only have the force of the rocket on the lever. There's a mechanical disadvantage here. The force on the end of the longer lever end with half the mass will be 1/2 F. And the time it takes to accelerate will be longer than the time it takes to accelerate the other system. Hand wavy explanation: the same rocket firing for longer will use more energy. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 10, 2025, 11:38 PM (13 days ago) to Paul "It will take more energy to spin up the balanced lever when one of the masses is twice the distance from the end and half the mass of the other." This is where I say "says you". This isn't any different than saying 4 lb dropped one foot is the same as 1 lb drop 4 ft. Without any physical experimental evidence this isn't a scientific statement. You're telling me you have a good reason to believe it's true... I'm asking to see your good reason. My good reason to disbelief is the law of the lever itself. And as I stated, in Steve's video minute physics concedes that using pulleys the half-mass will move twice the velocity with the same force applied. Of course there are other experiments like ballistic pendulums, crashing cars, moving Rockets, and tug of wars... That demonstrate no conservation of kinetic energy. The theory you're defending says it takes 25 times the energy to spin something five times as fast. You're telling me you have great confidence that is true? Paul Nord Feb 11, 2025, 1:05 PM (12 days ago) to me Let's try a thought experiment with a free falling object. The equations of motion are well agreed upon. Starting from rest, the distance traveled can be calculated as a function of the acceleration due to gravity and the amount of time which has elapsed. d = 0.5 * a * t^2 The velocity will be the derivative of this: v = at Falling 5 times the distance will therefore change 5 times the potential energy into kinetic energy. But it won't be 5 times the velocity. If you wanted 5 times the velocity, you would need to fall 5 times as long. And the distance you travel would be 25 times as far. For simplicity let's use distances of velocities of 1 and 5 and see how those play into the equation. We'll set the acceleration to be 10. First case where v = 1 v = at 1 = 10 * t 0.1 = t d = 0.5 * a * t^2 d = 0.5 * 10 * 0.1 ^2 d = 0.05 Second case where v = 5 v = at 5 = 10 * t 0.5 = t d = 0.5 * a * t^2 d = 0.5 * 10 * 0.5^2 d = 1.25 In the second case d is 25 times the distance that we got in the first case. A simple way to think about that change in potential energy is to note that the object is falling much faster during the extra time we gave it in the first case. You can confirm these equations of motion yourself. Here's a video analysis of a guy doing exactly this experiment. You can try to get his original video. Or you can download that app and do the experiment yourself. You can check the velocity of the ball at some distance from the start and from 25 times the distance from the start. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZFudTpPG8 If you can come up with a device that somehow doesn't obey these simple laws of motion, please apply for a patent. But you should also know that the Patent Office will only accept designs for perpetual motion machines if they are submitted with a working model. Paul Attachments area Preview YouTube video Video Physics Tracking Analysis (Free fall) Gary DraftScience Feb 11, 2025, 1:59 PM (12 days ago) to Paul You're just making my argument for me. You are conceding that a one Mass dropped four units of distance is only in the gravity two units of time and only collects two units of force. Your own statement verifies that 4 lb dropped one foot is not the same "force" as 1 lb dropped 4 ft. Not the same momentum, not the same capacity to do work. I've attempted to get you to answer simple questions: 1. Consistent with the law of the lever do you believe levers conserve momentum... Half masses twice the distance move twice as fast? 2. Do you believe pulley systems conserve momentum? 3. Do you believe that rocket thrust can give a rocket more "energy" than the momentum of the thrust? 4. Have you ever seen a ballistic pendulum collect any more "energy" then just the momentum? 5. Have you ever seen a car going twice as fast do 4 times the damage? 6. Have you ever seen a turbine spun five times as fast produce 25 times the electricity? 7. Do you think a one Mass cart going five velocity will win a tug of war 25 times over against a five mass cart going one velocity? Paul Nord Feb 11, 2025, 3:35 PM (12 days ago) to me It's difficult to answer your questions if we don't agree on the definition of force, mass, momentum, or energy. I think that we agree on distance. Regarding your first statements, you are clearly still confusing force, momentum, and energy. The potential energy added to a mass raised to a height h is m*g*h. To know the velocity of that object after freely falling that distance h and converting all of that potential energy to kinetic energy, you can calculate: 0.5 * m * v^2 = mgh. So the velocity of an object which falls a distance h will be: v = sqrt( 2 * g * h) If you double h, you do not double the velocity. This is really simple to check with video analysis. Here's a simple physics lab with exactly the problem you just described. It's done with simple stopwatches. https://www.uml.edu/docs/ball_drop_complete_tcm18-264104.pdf I'll offer some comments to your questions. But if we're not agreed on terminology, there's not much we can accomplish. 1. Consistent with the law of the lever do you believe levers conserve momentum... Half masses twice the distance move twice as fast? -- Depending on how you describe the lever problem, the lever generally exerts an external force. So you might take some care in applying the conservation of momentum laws. We discussed a freely spinning rod. Momentum was conserved in that case. Steve's mistake (at about the 5 minute mark in his video) was exactly that. The answer is no, the two objects will experience the same acceleration in Steve's example. But to move twice the distance (as described in Steve's problem) will take longer with the same acceleration. F = ma 2. Do you believe pulley systems conserve momentum? Again, there is an external force. The total momentum may be conserved, but not the vector quantity. Consider a perfectly elastic ball bounce. The momentum may have the same value after the bounce, but its direction will be different. 3. Do you believe that rocket thrust can give a rocket more "energy" than the momentum of the thrust? You're asking me to compare momentum and energy. The question makes no sense. You might as well ask, "Can the density of a glass of water change its mass?" These are two different ways of describing the properties of a thing. 4. Have you ever seen a ballistic pendulum collect any more "energy" then just the momentum? In the general lab setup, potential energy is stored in a spring and then released. Some of that is transferred to the ball. You can calculate the launch velocity from the height reached by the pendulum. KE = mgh = 0.5 * m * v^2 And, again, energy and momentum are not the same thing. 5. Have you ever seen a car going twice as fast do 4 times the damage? Quantifying damage done is pretty tricky. Here we might have a fun discussion of the Impulse Momentum Theorem. The maximum force will depend on the rate of change of velocity. And that also depends on the initial velocity. We measure this in the lab with a video of a Karate board break. The board can flex about 2 cm before it breaks. If it brings a hand of mass m to a stop in 2 cm we can estimate the force required. If you double the velocity, the force required to stop it in the same distance quadruples. 6. Have you ever seen a turbine spun five times as fast produce 25 times the electricity? Conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy depends on some other complex physics. It's not so much about the speed of the turbine as it is about the rate at which the energy is converted from one form to another. 7. Do you think a one Mass cart going five velocity will win a tug of war 25 times over against a five mass cart going one velocity? Curiously, this has more to do with the friction of the cart against the surface. Increasing the mass increases the normal force and gives you more grip on the road. Generally speaking, the heavy car wins. I did a video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hVzuxL_WkY Paul Attachments area Preview YouTube video Electric Car Tug-O-War Gary DraftScience Feb 12, 2025, 1:13 AM (11 days ago) to Paul Thank you for answering the questions. It makes it clear How Deeply we disagree, regarding what the evidence is, and what science can legitimately say. You keep referencing the 5-minute mark in steve moulds video... What he actually believes is at the 10 plus mark. As I have repeatedly stated he "believes" the half mass can only go 1.4 velocity. Neither he, nor you, explains how that belief is consistent with the law of the lever. And neither of you explain where the lost momentum is. The fact that the science you're defending hasn't even been bothered to do the experiment is glaring evidence that it isn't science. Just as a point of curiosity, how much would you be willing to wager on the outcome of a well done clinical experiment? As another point of curiosity if a well done clinical experiment is done and it decisively proves that the half-mass will go twice the velocity, and momentum will be conserved, and free kinetic energy will be created, would you then concede that E=.5mvv is a flawed Theory? I will respond to each of your responses in subsequent emails as it's probably best to focus on each subject individually. Paul Nord Feb 12, 2025, 12:32 PM (11 days ago) to me Steve makes the mistake at the 5 minute mark. He says that the rocket will have the "same experience" and therefore the "same acceleration" in response to each situation. That's not true. These words like work, energy, impulse, momentum, velocity, acceleration, time, and mass all have specific meanings in physics. Your impression of whether a 1 pound rock lifted 1 foot in the air has more (or less) "something" than a 1/2 point rock lifted 2 feet in the air is fine at the level of an intuition. If you want to make specific and testable predictions about the motion of falling rocks, you will need to work through the math. If you really want to learn physics, you should take a course. I normally get paid to provide individual instruction like this. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 12, 2025, 7:19 PM (11 days ago) to Paul "Steve makes the mistake at the 5 minute mark" You didn't watch the whole video did you? A bit after the 10 minute mark he states exactly the opposite of what he said at the 5-minute mark. The first half of the video he was explaining his intuition... Later he States what he "thinks" the actual Science is... Of course there's no citation to any actual experiment. You claim to know something about the history of MV squared... And you don't know that leibniz's only claimed evidence was the statement that 4 lb dropped one foot is the same energy as 1 lb drop 4 ft? I offered more than a dozen of your colleagues $4,000 to deal with this subject and none of them showed any courage. You're evasions and Petty insults are now a matter of record and you will be eventually proven to be the science denier. Paul Nord Feb 13, 2025, 2:42 PM (10 days ago) to me You continue to amuse me. Please build a working model of the physics you propose. Spend your money on a college course. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 13, 2025, 3:52 PM (10 days ago) to Paul Well I can just thank you again for proving my point. You are all just despicable cowards proselytizing a religion. You never answered my question, how much would you be willing to wager that leavers actually do obey the law of the lever? And of course get what you deserve. Paul Nord Feb 13, 2025, 4:30 PM (10 days ago) to me Thanks, Gary, You refuse to accept any proof or mathematics that I can provide. I won't take your bet because you won't accept any of my results. I guess you are free to decide that I'm just another part of the vast conspiracy hell bent on describing mechanical systems using Newton's Laws. It hardly rises to the level of a religion. But you do you. Thanks again for linking to my video. It's gotten a lot of hits with this little debate. Your thought experiment about a spinning rod is a good insight on this problem. It illustrates well how Steve applied the work energy theorem incorrectly. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 14, 2025, 12:56 AM (9 days ago) to Paul "You refuse to accept any proof or mathematics that I can provide." Mathematics doesn't prove anything... Mathematical framework is just a model and models are proven by testing. As an example of a "scientist" you have failed testing. Clearly you have no respect for the scientific method and the foundational ethic of test and retest. I claim it's an obvious fact that conventional physics makes proclamations regarding the truth that are way too under-evidenced to be asserted with any confidence. The kinetic energy theorem is plainly junk science, and you are a junk scientist to promote it as credible science. "I won't take your bet because you won't accept any of my results." I don't accept any dogmatic religious theories, appropriately including yours. Unjustified faith is not a "result" of anything but ignorance. "I guess you are free to decide that I'm just another part of the vast conspiracy hell bent on describing mechanical systems using Newton's Laws." If Newton could be Resurrected, he would despise you for your slander Against his hard-earned insights. You're just stomping on the shoulders of giants. "It hardly rises to the level of a religion. But you do you." I'm the one demanding evidence you're the one reading out of a book of delusions. "It illustrates well how Steve applied the work energy theorem incorrectly." The fact that you still won't concede this is a false accusation is just more proof of your belligerent ignorance and unrestrained arrogance. Paul Nord Feb 14, 2025, 2:00 PM (9 days ago) to me Thanks, Gary. It is certainly possible that Newton's laws have another derivation. Theoretically, there are infinitely many mathematical formulations which might give the same answers. These theories have proven themselves to be useful. We build bridges, we make cars better, we fly planes. You're always welcome to find a theory, or a case, where calculating energy is not useful. But the proof is in the experiment. In the 300 years since Newton no one has found a way to violate the laws of conservation of energy. Good luck with that. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 14, 2025, 4:10 PM (9 days ago) to Paul "It is certainly possible that Newton's laws have another derivation." When he stated under the second law that "twice the force twice the velocity three times the force three times the velocity" I think he made it clear that force and momentum are interchangeable. "Theoretically, there are infinitely many mathematical formulations which might give the same answers." Theoretically, a mathematical formulation should describe actual root functions... Not occasional indirect effects. "These theories have proven themselves to be useful." That's the part where I say show me... Show me the kinetic energy theorem accurately describing any circumstance where energy is transferred between objects of differing Mass. "We build bridges, we make cars better, we fly planes." We also landed on the moon... Not using the kinetic energy theorem "You're always welcome to find a theory, or a case, where calculating energy is not useful." Again the argument is in any case where you move energy from/to differing masses your calculations will not be useful "But the proof is in the experiment." You have no credible experimental evidence.... You haven't linked to anything relevant... Show me a lever not conserving momentum. Show me it taking 20five times the the energy to spin something five times as fast. "In the 300 years since Newton no one has found a way to violate the laws of conservation of energy." You are a perfect irony engine... Throughout this conversation you are claiming levers, gears, pulleys, don't conserve momentum. "Good luck with that." Apparently I will need some of that as finding a physicist with any integrity appears to be needle in a haystack difficult. Paul Nord Feb 14, 2025, 6:05 PM (9 days ago) to me "We build bridges, we make cars better, we fly planes." We also landed on the moon... Not using the kinetic energy theorem I'm pretty sure that Kinetic and Potential energy are critical to solving the tyrannical rocket equation. You have no credible experimental evidence.... You haven't linked to anything relevant... Show me a lever not conserving momentum. Show me it taking 20five times the the energy to spin something five times as fast. I described a couple of experiments where we test this in the freshman lab. The first lab is projectile motion. And the final lab of the semester is a ball rolling down an incline. The conservation of energy predictions allow you to describe the motion precisely. In the projectile case, the initial velocity and angle precisely determine the maximum height of the launch. In the rolling ball case you need to consider that a fraction of the energy goes into the angular motion. For a solid ball, this will be a ratio of 5/7. So the velocity at the end of the roll will be smaller than you would have gotten if you dropped the ball from the same height. You're free to sign up for our lab. Or any physics lab anywhere. Our conspiracy to teach mechanics correctly is vast. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 14, 2025, 10:44 PM (9 days ago) to Paul "I'm pretty sure that Kinetic and Potential energy are critical to solving the tyrannical rocket equation." The only thing complicated about the rocket equation is the moving Target of fuel consumption. If you narrow the subject to navigating something like a lunar module there is no complication. Momentum of thrust tells you what you can expect as an opposite reaction... Calculating the kinetic energy of thrust will be of no value at all. "I described a couple of experiments where we test this in the freshman lab." And I provided a counter argument explaining the flaws in your experiment and your reasoning... Gravity is a Time dependent Force "The first lab is projectile motion. And the final lab of the semester is a ball rolling down an incline" The ballistic pendulum, that can only collect momentum, provides a very good counter-argument, and counter evidence. Of course leavers pulleys and gears also provide a substantial proof. "The conservation of energy predictions allow you to describe the motion precisely." Only in your statements not in any evidence... Show me a lever "actually" Conserving kinetic energy. "In the projectile case, the initial velocity and angle precisely determine the maximum height of the launch." And it is only through understanding that momentum is in charge that you predict the velocity will be one half after three quarters of the trip. "In the rolling ball case you need to consider that a fraction of the energy goes into the angular motion." As stated gravity is a Time dependent Force the longer you take to roll down the ramp, the more Force you collect, and quite obviously not all of the force reveals itself as linear motion, some of it is stored as angular momentum that will only be seen when you extract the energy through friction or Collision. "For a solid ball, this will be a ratio of 5/7. So the velocity at the end of the roll will be smaller than you would have gotten if you dropped the ball from the same height." total momentum requires combining both linear momentum and angular momentum. "You're free to sign up for our lab. Or any physics lab anywhere." And you're free to continue misrepresenting the truth regarding the depth of experimation that has taken place. Unfortunately that freedom has turned science into rubbish. "Our conspiracy to teach mechanics correctly is vast." What is vast is your misrepresentations and slander. What you have a lot of is dogma and arrogance... You are a profile in scientific failure. Gary DraftScience Feb 16, 2025, 1:38 PM (7 days ago) to Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HacyIflk_8 Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox...Feeding Paul Nord to the Science Lion Paul Nord Feb 17, 2025, 12:56 PM (6 days ago) to me Ok, I'll bite. Please describe your calculations of the ballistic pendulum. Do you have a paper on this? Perhaps you can write something. Pretend you're turning it in for lab credit. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 18, 2025, 12:11 AM (5 days ago) to Paul "Ok, I'll bite." Unfortunately you won't chew on anything "Please describe your calculations of the ballistic pendulum." The calculation is consistent with the conventional "conservation of momentum" model. mV in equals Mv out... As ballistic pendulum seldom have opposing Direction vectors it's just a matter of accounting for small losses to heat and deformation. I viewed dozens of experiments done various ways and without exception most of the kinetic energy is lost and most all of the momentum is conserved. Is your experience different? If kinetic energy is real, why can't it ever be successfully collected? "Do you have a paper on this? " Conservation of momentum isn't new science... But I have started doing some writing regarding the general subject of energy: https://inmendham.com/energy.html and I do have a 7 or so minute video that shows and explains my quite perfect simulation of charge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_FTyWZX-c "Perhaps you can write something." Why do you make videos demonstrating if you think writing is so effective? In most of my videos I am illustrating a concept and diagramming a experiment... The clear challenge is for a dissenter to respond in kind with a better diagram and explanation. In my opinion that's good science. "Pretend you're turning it in for lab credit." I'm not a big fan of pretend... Why don't you do it first and pretend you're a fair cop for a minute and concede ballistic pendulums aren't very good evidence for the existence of kinetic energy. Attachments area Preview YouTube video The charge simulation Paul Nord Feb 18, 2025, 12:36 PM (5 days ago) to me Gary, My first impression from your writing is this: You've thrown away a bunch of experimentation and scientific reasoning that brought us an understanding of light, electrons, and protons. If you're going to throw away all of these experiments, you can't even claim that these things exist without some independent proof. But I think that you are hinting at some limits of the current understanding of the nature of matter, space, and time. The Higgs particle is invoked as the particle that gives everything mass. We do describe momentum as a disturbance of the Higgs Field moving through space. Yes, we could describe the motion of a spinning top in earth's gravitational field by solving the equations for each and every subatomic particle. But we find that for more than a few molecules that's not too feasible. So the average momentum and potential are more typically used. We put the whole thing on a balance and measure its weight. Is there a more fundamental way of describing that? Perhaps. But the weight is pretty useful. I'm sensing that part of what you and I are failing to communicate comes down to not having a simple agreement on the philosophy of science. When is a thing considered to be true or proved? How does one interpret an experiment? How well do equations need to agree with experiments for us to accept the mathematical description as something which describes the fundamental laws of nature? We might even disagree about whether there even are consistent fundamental laws of nature. I would describe the ballistic pendulum as an experiment to determine the velocity of an object by measuring how high a pendulum swings when it captures that object. The pendulum, initially at rest (velocity 0) with some mass (M) captures a projectile (with mass m) traveling horizontally with an unknown velocity (v). After the collision the conservation laws you accept would show that the new velocity (vf for velocity final) can be calculated from the following equation. M*0 + m*v = (M+m)*vf The pendulum will swing up to a height (h) where we like to stop it or use some indicator to show the maximum extent of the swing. The kinetic energy (KE) in the combined pendulum and projectile right after collision is: KE = 0.5*(M+m)*vf*vf This is equal to the potential energy (PE) when the pendulum reaches its maximum height. PE = (M+m)*g*h We can solve for vf by setting PE equal to KE: (M+m)*g*h = 0.5*(M+m)*vf*vf Doing all of the algebra: vf = sqrt(2*g*h) And we can then solve for the initial velocity: v = (M+m)*sqrt(2*g*h)/m Now please tell me how you do this experiment. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 18, 2025, 3:04 PM (5 days ago) to Paul "You've thrown away a bunch of experimentation" I would claim that's a false assertion... What I have done is reasonably interpreted experiments... As example the double slit experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ld6badhuk I defy you to show my interpretation to be unreasonable. From the very beginning of this interaction I have pleaded to see your evidence... Where is your experiment showing it takes 25 times to fuel to spin a motor five times as fast? "But I think that you are hinting at some limits of the current understanding of the nature of matter, space, and time." I'm directly saying the "current understanding" is little more than religion. "The Higgs particle is invoked as the particle that gives everything mass. We do describe momentum as a disturbance of the Higgs Field moving through space." Should be named the Holy Ghost particle... You really think gluons are a thing? "Yes, we could describe the motion of a spinning top in earth's gravitational field by solving the equations for each and every subatomic particle." I have no objection to using statistics and recognizing you can approximate with almost a probabilistic certainty. "But we find that for more than a few molecules that's not too feasible." The argument is with your formalizations ... MV squared is made up mush... there was never was a good reason to believe "So the average momentum and potential are more typically used. We put the whole thing on a balance and measure its weight." Show me where you weighed 4 lbs dropped one foot and 1 lb dropped 4 ft? "Is there a more fundamental way of describing that? Perhaps. But the weight is pretty useful." Where have I argued against weight being a good measure of energy? "I'm sensing that part of what you and I are failing to communicate comes down to not having a simple agreement on the philosophy of science." Yeah I believe in experimental proof, you believe in preaching Dogma. "When is a thing considered to be true or proved?" Testing and retesting.... Why haven't they attempted the Eddington experiment from space? "How does one interpret an experiment?" Very carefully ... Go watch some of the richard Feynman lectures where he describes the double slit experiment... Almost nothing he says or draws is accurate. "How well do equations need to agree with experiments for us to accept the mathematical description as something which describes the fundamental laws of nature? " Again where is your experiment showing it takes 25 times the fuel to spin something five times as fast? "We might even disagree about whether there even are consistent fundamental laws of nature." Well I'm certainly arguing for consistency, no dualities, and conservation. "I would describe the ballistic pendulum as an experiment to determine the velocity of an object by measuring how high a pendulum swings when it captures that object." You're just using a mass to catch the motion of another Mass "After the collision the conservation laws you accept would show that the new velocity (vf for velocity final) can be calculated from the following equation. M*0 + m*v = (M+m)*vf " My equation is mv in = MV out (minus losses to the mechanism) "The pendulum will swing up to a height (h) where we like to stop it or use some indicator to show the maximum extent of the swing. The kinetic energy (KE) in the combined pendulum and projectile right after collision is: KE = 0.5*(M+m)*vf*vf" Why are you typing this... It's an absolute proven fact that you will always lose most of the kinetic energy. And in most cases capture most all of the momentum. Show me a single ballistic pendulum experiment where a significant portion of the kinetic energy is conserved/captured. "This is equal to the potential energy (PE) when the pendulum reaches its maximum height. PE = (M+m)*g*h We can solve for vf by setting PE equal to KE: (M+m)*g*h = 0.5*(M+m)*vf*vf Doing all of the algebra: vf = sqrt(2*g*h) And we can then solve for the initial velocity: v = (M+m)*sqrt(2*g*h)/m Now please tell me how you do this experiment. " I do the experiment by recognizing conservation of momentum... And that's how every physicist to ever perform the experiment has approached the problem. If I link you to a professor Lewin video will you watch it? Attachments area Preview YouTube video The double slit Paul Nord Feb 18, 2025, 3:27 PM (5 days ago) to me Ok, so what do you think the ballistic pendulum experiment is trying to measure? Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 18, 2025, 6:59 PM (5 days ago) to Paul The Ballistic pendulum is used to collect an object's momentum/force. In the past it was difficult to ascertain the velocity of lite fast things... By causing the fast thing to merge with a heavy thing you can use the principle of conservation of momentum to deduce the light things merging velocity. It's just a version of an inelastic Collision... And all these collisions demonstrate momentum to be substantially conserved and kinetic energy to be substantially irrelevant. Paul Nord Feb 18, 2025, 10:47 PM (5 days ago) to me Ok. Walk me through the calculation you would use to find the velocity of a "light thing" with a ballistic pendulum. Specifically, how do you determine the velocity of the "heavy thing?" Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 19, 2025, 12:09 AM (4 days ago) to Paul As momentum is just weight... You can just measure the impulse weight by moving an object, and if you know it's Mass you can know its velocity. For example, If I put a 9 lb mass in front of a spring attached to a brick wall and then I crash a 1 lb object going 10 miles an hour elastically into the 9 lbs... I will then have a 10 lb Mass moving 1 mph and if the spring is marked in 1 lb compressions it will read 10 lbs. It's just more evidence about how bad your physics is that it's never bothered to figure out what velocity would cause an object to weigh its gravitational weight hitting a horizontal scale. I did a crude version of the experiment and have approximated the velocity all objects are technically moving when supported by the Earth's surface... Any object traveling a velocity of approximately 1 mph will read an impulse weight equaling their gravitational weight on a scale oriented horizontally... Fun fact. I'm not arguing against the use of ballistic "pendulums" nor am I arguing that height doesn't decide how much momentum a pendulum can acquire... But just as I claim leavers only conserve momentum I also assert the same is true for pendulums. I claim you have no experimental evidence of a ballistic pendulum collecting the kinetic energy of an absorbed impact. Paul Nord Feb 19, 2025, 1:49 AM (4 days ago) to me If I understand what you just said, you don't use a pendulum to do the ballistic pendulum experiment. You measure the velocity after the collision with a spring. Have you built this experiment using a spring marked with 1 lb compressions? Does the 1 pound object moving at 10 miles per hour also read 10 pounds? Or does it read something different? Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 19, 2025, 3:23 AM (4 days ago) to Paul "If I understand what you just said, you don't use a pendulum to do the ballistic pendulum experiment." What I said was a ballistic pendulum is just an inelastic collision experiment... They have a thing called a ballistic sled... I'm just stating there's different mechanisms you can use to collect something's momentum... I'm just offering the opinion that a spring connected to a heavy mass in a horizontal configuration would be a serviceable replacement for a ballistic pendulum. "You measure the velocity after the collision with a spring." You measure the impulse. It's clearly my opinion that Springs collect momentum... And only momentum. "Have you built this experiment using a spring marked with 1 lb compressions?" I did the experiment with a cheap analog spring scale "Does the 1 pound object moving at 10 miles per hour also read 10 pounds?" I haven't done the experiment but I would argue that i'm quite certain that will be the outcome... Funny how your physics hasn't done any of these experiments. "Or does it read something different?" Newton said "twice the force twice the motion three times the force three times the motion" as most physics is reversible it seems reasonable to expect that 10 times the motion would be 10 times the force... Or as I would put it 10 times the impulse/weight The simple truth is I can show lots of experiments where momentum is conserved. I'm asking you to show me credible evidence that kinetic energy can be conservationally collected. Show me it taking 25 times the fuel to spin something five times as fast and the argument is over. Gary DraftScience Feb 19, 2025, 11:03 AM (4 days ago) to Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeS98Ls3v98 Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox...Paul Nord and The Saga of the ballistic pendulum Paul Nord Feb 19, 2025, 12:16 PM (4 days ago) to me Thanks again for the video plug. I love the new graphic. Actually I've done the experiment. I was hedging because I don't think that you'll like my answers. Let's limit ourselves to discussing just the ballistic pendulum. Perhaps we can get to a point where we can suggest an experiment with the ballistic pendulum that will distinguish between my model of the universe and yours. I've got one that looks fairly identical to the one my friend Dale has here at University of Iowa: https://instructional-resources.physics.uiowa.edu/demos/1m4041-ballistic-pendulum It doesn't have a spring or a sliding sled to catch the mass after collision. It uses a pendulum and a little escapement mechanism to catch the thing after collision. One presumes that the catch mechanism is very low friction. Since it allows travel only in one direction and then it will trap the pendulum at the maximum height. We've agreed that the ballistic pendulum is used to measure the velocity of a small thing before it crashes into a large thing. We agree that momentum is conserved. Show me your calculation for the velocity given the masses of the small thing and the large thing. I believe that you'll also need the angle and length of the pendulum. But you could also solve it in terms of the final height. Please write out that equation for me and we can test it. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 19, 2025, 4:15 PM (4 days ago) to Paul "Thanks again for the video plug. I love the new graphic." I wouldn't call it "getting plugged" ... But I guess it's good you're enjoying it. "Actually I've done the experiment. I was hedging because I don't think that you'll like my answers." I've seen at least two dozen experiments... Professor Lewin actually shoots a bullet into the pendulum... I don't think you're going to undo those MIT results. "Let's limit ourselves to discussing just the ballistic pendulum." I'd like to limit the conversation to the fact that kinetic energy is never recovered/conserved in the experiment... that no experiment has ever, or will ever collect more than just the momentum. "Perhaps we can get to a point where we can suggest an experiment with the ballistic pendulum that will distinguish between my model of the universe and yours." Just show any experiment collecting more than just the momentum. "I've got one that looks fairly identical to the one my friend Dale has here at University of Iowa: https://instructional-resources.physics.uiowa.edu/demos/1m4041-ballistic-pendulum" I am very excited for you "It doesn't have a spring or a sliding sled to catch the mass after collision. It uses a pendulum and a little escapement mechanism to catch the thing after collision." Yes, there might be a hundred videos on YouTube using that exact device. "One presumes that the catch mechanism is very low friction. Since it allows travel only in one direction and then it will trap the pendulum at the maximum height." No one's disagreeing how the pendulum works... I'm claiming it never catches more than the momentum. "We've agreed that the ballistic pendulum is used to measure the velocity of a small thing before it crashes into a large thing. We agree that momentum is conserved." If we agree momentum is conserved then kinetic energy can't be... That's just an absolute mathematical fact. "Please write out that equation for me and we can test it." Why don't you just watch the professor Lewin video? He calculates the ark... Recognizes it is within the small angle approximation, calculates the final momentum and as he knows the mass of the bullet he calculates the initial momentum... Most of the momentum is conserved and as he clearly writes on the board 99.94 percent of the kinetic energy does not produce motion in the pendulum. Paul Nord Feb 19, 2025, 4:55 PM (4 days ago) to me Do you have that link to Dr. Lewin's video? What was the equation he used to determine the momentum from the arc? Paul Paul Nord Feb 19, 2025, 5:08 PM (4 days ago) to me I couldn't find the complete video. I found a snippet. Did you notice the square root in Dr. Lewin's equation? Paul Screen Shot 2025-02-19 at 4.03.07 PM.png Gary DraftScience Feb 19, 2025, 8:49 PM (4 days ago) to Paul https://youtu.be/BBYLiF_R0Xs?list=PLyQSN7X0ro203puVhQsmCj9qhlFQ-As8e&t=672 The square root is just a consequence of four times the distance only producing twice the velocity... Again it's evidence for my side. Attachments area Preview YouTube video 8.01x - Lect 17 - Impulse, Rockets Paul Nord Feb 20, 2025, 10:27 AM (3 days ago) to me Thanks. At the 2:48 minute mark: Screen Shot 2025-02-20 at 9.26.12 AM.png Gary DraftScience Feb 20, 2025, 11:11 AM (3 days ago) to Paul Sorry I don't see any counter point you're making... 99.94 percent of the kinetic energy isn't transferred... That's not good evidence of its existence. I have already established my agreement with Galilean physics regarding falling objects or rising objects. Squaring the time quadruples the distance. Twice the velocity four times the distance. Gravity is a Time dependent force and when you're opposing it, it applies friction in time-dependent units not distant dependent units. There's nothing about measuring a pendulum's height in gravity that proves kinetic energy. The fact that the velocity will be the square root of the height clearly indicates no equality between height and velocity/force/momentum. Paul Nord Feb 20, 2025, 12:02 PM (3 days ago) to me In the video Levin is using conservation of energy to calculate the speed from the maximum height of the pendulum. Hey, why am I getting a bunch of notes saying, "Do not engage with this Draft Science guy. He never listens to anything and will just attack you."? Perhaps that is true. I just pointed to a place in a video you shared where the lecturer specifically writes 0.5*m*v^2 on the board. And he specifically talks about conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy. I asked you for equations. Those are the equations you gave me. Paul Gary DraftScience Feb 20, 2025, 12:39 PM (3 days ago) to Paul "In the video Levin is using conservation of energy to calculate the speed from the maximum height of the pendulum." He's obviously not using any "conservation of kinetic energy" formula. The maximum height of the pendulum tells you what the velocity will be, and obviously the velocity is far short of the Velocity needed to conserve the kinetic energy. "Hey, why am I getting a bunch of notes saying, "Do not engage with this Draft Science guy." The internet is covered in trolls... Try saying something controversial and they'll show up like mosquitoes. "He never listens to anything and will just attack you.? " Have I in some way unreasonably attacked you? "Perhaps that is true. I just pointed to a place in a video you shared where the lecturer specifically writes 0.5*m*v^2 on the board. And he specifically talks about conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy." Amazing gibberish, obviously I don't think there's any such thing as kinetic energy... And reasonably I'm pointing out how every experiment proves it. As for the notion of potential energy saying a boat on the side of a stream has "potential energy" isn't saying anything real. "I asked you for equations." And I made it clear mv in = MV out. And I made it also clear that I realized there are equations to calculate the Arc of a pendulum and convert that into linear motion... I have no disagreement with the product of those equations as they are perfectly consistent with my MV in equals MV out. "Those are the equations you gave me." I think science is about testing and experiments ...not dueling equations. You can't show kinetic energy being conserved and you won't reasonably concede that gives me good reason to believe it is mush. Gary DraftScience Feb 21, 2025, 12:52 PM (2 days ago) to Paul Just in case you're interested... I talk some about figuring out linear motion on a curved surface at this point of my current video: https://youtu.be/Zf_x8BGnZhU?t=2723 Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox ...Belligerent ignorance isn't science Paul Nord Feb 21, 2025, 2:07 PM (2 days ago) to me Please summarize Lewin's equations for me. Gary DraftScience Feb 21, 2025, 4:19 PM (2 days ago) to Paul I can't for the life of me understand why you think this is relevant to a conversation regarding the credibility of kinetic energy as a concept... But I'll give it a try. The weight of the "load" is known... By acquiring knowledge of its velocity you can discern how much momentum it has acquired. The linear horizontal velocity has a relationship to the arc of the pendulum's motion. As the pendulum moves sideways it moves at a fractional rate upwards. That relationship has the formulation of vv=g * (the linear distance moved squared) divided by (the length of the pendulum). The square term is necessary because 4 units of height in gravity only creates two units of velocity. Gary DraftScience 11:58 AM (12 hours ago) to Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP-NUQ8Rl6s Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox ... Paul Nord and Conservation of energy Paul Nord 4:16 PM (7 hours ago) to me Correct. That's a statement of Conservation of Energy. The height (h) of the pendulum above its lowest point can be calculated approximately for small angles from the length of the pendulum (L) and the displacement along its circular path (x): h = (x*x)/(2*L) What you've written works out to be exactly a statement of the energy conservation laws as Levin discussed them: KE = 0.5 * m * v * v PE = m * g * h KE = PE 0.5 * m * v * v = m * g * h The mass cancels out on both sides. And we substitute the solution for h from the first equation: 0.5 * v * v = g * x * x / (2 * L) Multiply both sides by 2: v * v = g * x * x / L Solve for v: v = sqrt(g*x*x/L) Have we agreed on a definition for energy? That's the same answer I gave you for the final velocity of the ballistic pendulum. The initial velocity would be found through conservation of momentum. You may notice that this will be true for small angles. But it's clearly not true at 90 degrees. We know that the height there would be equal to L. The distance traveled (x) would be one quarter of the circumference: x = 2 * Pi * L / 4 x = L * Pi / 2 We know that it would be L at that point. So the correct solution for v in terms of this x distance around the circle would be: v = sqrt(g * L * (1 - cos(x/L)) ) Paul Gary DraftScience 4:50 PM (7 hours ago) to Paul "Correct. That's a statement of Conservation of Energy." The facts of the experiment are that 90% of the momentum was conserved AND 99.94% of the kinetic energy was not collected by the pendulum. How with any decency can you claim conservation of energy! "What you've written works out to be exactly a statement of the energy conservation laws as Levin discussed them:" What Professor Lewin absolutely stated was only the momentum was conserved.... And most all of the kinetic energy was not collected. "Have we agreed on a definition for energy?" 99% missing is not the definition of conservation. "That's the same answer I gave you for the final velocity of the ballistic pendulum." The final velocity of the ballistic pendulum was 99% short of being sufficient to equal the kinetic energy in. "The initial velocity would be found through conservation of momentum." Conservation of momentum isn't debatable... conservation of kinetic energy clearly is. I never argued momentum isn't conserved... That's what you and Steve mould are arguing Paul Nord 5:05 PM (6 hours ago) to me Here is a text transcript from the video which you said explains the ballistic pendulum correctly. Starting around the 2 minute mark.... When it was here, it had a speed v prime. And we know that there was kinetic energy here-- no gravitational potential energy. I can call this level U = 0, but right here, if this difference in height is h, then all the kinetic energy has been converted to gravitational potential energy. So we apply the theorem, the work-energy theorem, or you could say... and it's equally valid, you could say we applied the conservation of mechanical energy. And so this kinetic energy, which is one-half m plus M times v prime squared is now converted exclusively to gravitational potential energy, which equals m plus M times g times that h. Gary DraftScience 5:11 PM (6 hours ago) to Paul one-half mv squared. You can also calculate how much kinetic energy there is when this bullet is absorbed in here. 11:24 That's very easy-- that's one-half times the total mass, m plus M, 11:30 times v prime squared, which you also know now. And so you will see then, perhaps to your surprise, 11:38 that if you compare the two, that 99.94% of all available kinetic energy 11:45 before the collision was destroyed, and therefore was converted to heat. That happened, of course... the heat was produced in that block. Paul Nord 5:44 PM (6 hours ago) to me Right. The ballistic pendulum is a perfectly inelastic collision. The bullet imbeds in the block and the two move together with the same final speed. Much of the kinetic energy is converted into heat, sound, and deformation of the block. We're not applying the conservation of energy to the interaction between the block and the bullet. We're applying it to what happens to the block after the bullet comes to rest. If it were a perfectly elastic interaction, the block would move twice as fast and swing up four times as high. Would you like to see the demo of a bouncy ball and a non-bouncy ball knocking over blocks? The ball that bounces back transfers more momentum and energy to the block. This is an easily testable experiment. You need to use both the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy to solve the ballistic pendulum problem. Paul Gary DraftScience 11:45 PM (19 minutes ago) to Paul "Much of the kinetic energy is converted into heat, sound, and deformation of the block." That's just a fairy story... Prove that statement with one single physical experimental measurement. In the case of a bullet you've got like 2000J going in and you're claiming that 1999J are converted to useless, somehow uncollectible, Heat. That isn't science. "We're not applying the conservation of energy to the interaction between the block and the bullet." You're not applying logic, reasoning, or facts. The simple truth is the ballistic pendulum can't collect more than the momentum, because that would be "free momentum" and that would be "free energy" "We're applying it to what happens to the block after the bullet comes to rest." You're supposed to be showing how kinetic energy does work... Clearly the only thing that did any work was the momentum. "If it were a perfectly elastic interaction, the block would move twice as fast and swing up four times as high." That would still be about 80% short of collecting or conserving the kinetic energy. "Would you like to see the demo of a bouncy ball and a non-bouncy ball knocking over blocks? The ball that bounces back transfers more momentum and energy to the block." The fact that crushable surfaces do not transfer energy very well is not a fact I need demonstrated. "This is an easily testable experiment." Not as easy as dropping 4 lb 1 ft and 1 lb 4 ft "You need to use both the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy to solve the ballistic pendulum problem." You didn't solve anything... You just made up a fake story about fake events (deformation and Heat) for for which you have no "real world" evidence. Back on February 4th you said "Momentum and Energy will both be conserved." I pointed out that's impossible in any circumstance where you are transferring energy between objects of different mass. In the lever example if the half mass moves with 1.4 the velocity, 30% of the momentum is lost. If the half-mass moves with twice the velocity you have doubled the kinetic energy. That Paradox, you have done nothing to resolve, proves only one theory of energy can be real. I have pointed out that ballistic pendulums can't collect kinetic energy... Rocket ships cannot collect kinetic energy. Even water wheels cannot collect kinetic energy. Clearly kinetic energy is the nonsense and conservation of momentum always prevails. Paul Nord 11:55 AM (13 hours ago) to me I heard a great discussion some years ago about the nature of how we teach science. A standard test for physics students is the 'Force Concepts Inventory' or FCI. Its usefulness in teaching is much debated. But the ideas are well agreed upon. But the discussion was about creating an "Energy Concepts Inventory". What they found was that scientists aren't very careful about how they talk about energy. Some states have teaching standards like SCREAM (Solar, Chemical, Radiant, Electrical, Atomic, and Mechanical) to list all of the possible forms of energy. And some states use other lists. The lists are not great. (e.g. How would you classify an alpha particle coming from the sun? Is that solar, atomic, or mechanical? And I'm not even sure where heat fits in there.) Chemists use sort of an opposite definition and calculate things in terms of Entropy. A lower energy state is a higher entropy state for a chemist. I believe that Michael Fowell already did the 4 lb 1 ft and the 1lb 4 ft experiment for you. You make an excellent observation about the perfectly elastic collision. If the projectile bounces off the block it will have some velocity after the collision albeit in the other direction. So not all of the kinetic energy goes into the block. We use the concept of energy in calculations of converting it from one form to another. Heat drive steam turbines. Fuels are burned to propel cars. We can account for energy losses to many other forms. We work to make cars more efficient with better tires, lower engine friction, aerodynamics, etc. These are quite useful fields of study. Are you suggesting that they throw out their efficiency calculations and explore how much momentum is contained in a gallon of gas? Paul Paul Nord 1:57 PM (11 hours ago) to me One quick clarification: Do you accept the law of conservation of energy as a fundamental principle of physics? A simple yes or no would help me understand your position. Gary DraftScience 3:04 PM (10 hours ago) to Paul "I heard a great discussion" I guess you had to be there... Doesn't sound like much in the retelling. "I believe that Michael Fowell already did the 4 lb 1 ft and the 1lb 4 ft experiment for you." So you think the 350-year-old claim is proven by that junk experiment? So you actually believe that things with very different momentums can compress the spring the same amount? That's something with half the momentum can weigh the same as something with twice the momentum? "You make an excellent observation about the perfectly elastic collision. If the projectile bounces off the block it will have some velocity after the collision albeit in the other direction. So not all of the kinetic energy goes into the block." Your physics claims that if I get a 100% reflection, 200% of the momentum went into the object I hit... Basically I can convert, by your physics, 100 momentums into 300 momentums. "We use the concept of energy in calculations of converting it from one form to another." If you mean kinetic energy, you should say kinetic energy... "Heat drive steam turbines." Heat is just momentum... I will be playing a Richard Feynman video where he says just that. "Fuels are burned to propel cars." How does fuels prove kinetic energy? "We can account for energy losses to many other forms." The whole point of this conversation is the Paradox you haven't resolved. If the half-mass moves for at 1.4 you've lost 30% of the momentum... If It Moves at twice the velocity you have doubled the kinetic energy. "We work to make cars more efficient with better tires, lower engine friction, aerodynamics, etc." If you're saying kinetic energy theory is vital to any of this please provide an example... I'm arguing I can do the same thing better following the momentum. "These are quite useful fields of study. Are you suggesting that they throw out their efficiency calculations and explore how much momentum is contained in a gallon of gas?" Chemical energy is just the result of force interactions between electrons and protons... The same principle is involved masses moving velocities. "Do you accept the law of conservation of energy as a fundamental principle of physics? A simple yes or no would help me understand your position." As I have made perfectly clear repeatedly I only believe in conservation of momentum and believe your conception of kinetic "energy" to be nothing more than a silly unevidenced fable. Paul Nord 4:03 PM (9 hours ago) to me "Do you accept the law of conservation of energy as a fundamental principle of physics? A simple yes or no would help me understand your position." As I have made perfectly clear repeatedly I only believe in conservation of momentum and believe your conception of kinetic "energy" to be nothing more than a silly unevidenced fable. Is that a "no" on the First Law of Thermodynamics? Just making sure I understand—are you rejecting the principle that energy is always conserved in a closed system?" Gary DraftScience 4:53 PM (8 hours ago) to Paul "Is that a "no" on the First Law of Thermodynamics? Just making sure I understand—are you rejecting the principle that energy is always conserved in a closed system?"" This is just straw man mush... Obviously you're claim to ownership of the word "energy" to only refer to kinetic energy is just part of your fabiology. Mass and velocity defines Motion in the universe and heat is just small masses moving velocities. I'm rejecting the idea that any squared velocity term is conserved... And am clearly confirming that momentum as energy is conserved.... Put simply I'm clearly claiming all heat is just momentum and it cannot be created or destroyed only transferred. Paul Nord 5:09 PM (8 hours ago) to me I see that your system is internally consistent in its own way, but it doesn’t align with experimentally verified physics. Since you’re not engaging with the mathematical foundations, I don’t see much more to discuss. Gary DraftScience 7:20 PM (5 hours ago) to Paul "but it doesn’t align with experimentally verified physics." And that statement doesn't align with anything factual... Show me the experiment demonstrating it takes 25 times the fuel to spin something five times as fast... Or show something spinning five times as fast doing 25 times the work. "Since you’re not engaging with the mathematical foundations" I don't engage with flat Earth mathematics either.... You just keep evading the subject...The whole point of this conversation is the Paradox you haven't resolved. If the half-mass moves for at 1.4 you've lost 30% of the momentum... If It Moves at twice the velocity you have doubled the kinetic energy. So you really think a one Mass moving 1.4 can cause a 2 Mass to move at one velocity? "I don’t see much more to discuss." Except the obvious made up bull in the science shop Paul Nord 11:44 AM (11 hours ago) to me Before we go further, I want to make sure we’re using the same definitions. Can you clarify how you define mass, momentum, and force? That way, we can be sure we’re talking about the same concepts. Perhaps you can also give me the definitions of mechanical energy – kinetic and potential. You don't have to believe in them, of course. But you seem familiar enough with the vis viva debate to articulate both perspectives. I hope this is a question worth your time. Since you've put a lot of thought into your perspective, I’d appreciate a clear explanation of these definitions from you. That way, I can be sure I’m understanding your framework properly. Paul Gary DraftScience 12:30 PM (11 hours ago) to Paul "Can you clarify how you define mass, momentum, and force? That way, we can be sure we’re talking about the same concepts." Mass is matter and I would argue the smallest bits of matter are electrons and protons... I would assert you have to apply force to move electrons and protons... That means they have weight in the form of momentum. I would argue gravitational weight should equal our atomic weight but unfortunately they used the kinetic energy theorem to calculate the mass of electrons and protons. Obviously momentum is just a mass (any Mass) moving of velocity. I accept Newton's description of force being proportional to momentum...ie force is something moving the speed of light that carries proportionally exchangeable momentum. "Perhaps you can also give me the definitions of mechanical energy – kinetic and potential." I don't have much use for these terms... I would argue all energy is Just Energy as manifested as momentum. Saying it's mechanical is superfluous. I would argue that there are two states energy can be in, active and stored ... I would reduce this to linear and circular ... Or terms like free and trapped. A river is active energy and a boat doesn't have any potential until you put it in the river and even then it doesn't have any potential it merely collects energy from the river... More specifically the energy is transferred from the river to the boat. "But you seem familiar enough with the vis viva debate to articulate both perspectives." Sadly most physicists have no understanding of this debate... It was never a debate over evidence just mostly a debate over God. "I hope this is a question worth your time." The Paradox of the energy duality is worth every scientist's time. "That way, I can be sure I’m understanding your framework properly." I think I have explained to you the ultimate framework... There's only two things in the universe, speed of light Force... And dead hunks of matter that are pushed around by it. Paul Nord 12:52 PM (10 hours ago) to me "I think I have explained to you the ultimate framework... There's only two things in the universe, speed of light Force... And dead hunks of matter that are pushed around by it." This 'ultimate framework' is a philosophical assertion. A useful scientific theory makes quantitative predictions which can be tested. Can you write down equations that make new predictions which differ from existing physics? Gary DraftScience 3:07 PM (8 hours ago) to Paul "This 'ultimate framework' is a philosophical assertion. A useful scientific theory makes quantitative predictions which can be tested. Can you write down equations that make new predictions which differ from existing physics?" I really don't think this is the subject... I've made the claim that the two theories of energy are incompatible. To conserve one you must destroy the other every single time you transfer energy between objects of different Mass. I'm guessing you still claim both can be conserved... And there's no Paradox to resolve. Is that the state of your understanding? As for my foundational theories, that, I don't need to have to see the Paradox of energy duality. I have previously linked you to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_FTyWZX-c It describes my working simulation that quite perfectly duplicates the function of charge between electrons and protons... The simple math is built into the simulation... And the resulting functions are perfectly consistent with maxwellian predictions. Paul Nord 3:16 PM (8 hours ago) to me You didn’t answer my question. Can you write down equations that make new predictions different from existing physics? Yes or no? Gary DraftScience 3:30 PM (8 hours ago) to Paul "You didn’t answer my question. Can you write down equations that make new predictions different from existing physics? Yes or no?" The first place physics isn't math ... It's things with properties and relationships. Regardless, i've given you my math... mass times velocity equals energy... Energy cannot be created or destroyed... Mass cannot be created or destroyed... So mv in always equals MV out . I claim a half-mass two distances on a lever will leave with twice the velocity of a full Mass one distance, when applying the same Force to the opposite side of the lever. My math is. The force carries a momentum... If you apply an object moving to the lever it's momentum will be transferred to the other side of the lever... Mv in = MV out. What other math do you require? Paul Nord 4:18 PM (7 hours ago) to me Your equation, mv = MV, is just standard momentum conservation. There's nothing new here. But you claim there’s a contradiction with kinetic energy conservation. Your description doesn't provide any useful predictions. Suppose that I take a compression spring (with spring constant k) and place it on a table and squeeze it down with a mass M . You say that it stores some quantity of force (or momentum? I'm not sure how you define it.). Whatever you call it, calculate that quantity. Next latch that spring into place so that it stays compressed. We'll next turn it sideways and place it between two blocks of mass m1 and m2 on a frictionless surface. We'll carefully release the latch without disturbing the system. The two masses will be pushed by the spring and fly apart in opposite directions. Predict the velocities of m1 and m2. Use whatever equations your model requires, but stick to masses and velocities—no vague proportional arguments. Give me exact solutions so I can go get some masses and some springs and put actual numbers in there. Then we can test your theory. Gary DraftScience 7:04 PM (4 hours ago) to Paul "Your equation, mv = MV, is just standard momentum conservation. There's nothing new here. But you claim there’s a contradiction with kinetic energy conservation. Your description doesn't provide any useful predictions."00 Apparently you drink... What the f... Steve mold predicts the half-mass leaves with 1.4.... I'm asserting it leaves with twice the velocity... These are predictions and the outcome decides the truth regarding the credibility of the kinetic energy theorem. "Suppose that I take a compression spring (with spring constant k) and place it on a table and squeeze it down with a mass M . You say that it stores some quantity of force (or momentum? I'm not sure how you define it.). Whatever you call it, calculate that quantity." I've done numerous videos talking about hooks law (F = –kx).. It's again evidence for my side... The Defenders of kinetic energy state that twice the weight is also four times the energy and obvious contradiction to hooke's law. "Next latch that spring into place so that it stays compressed. We'll next turn it sideways and place it between two blocks of mass m1 and m2 on a frictionless surface. We'll carefully release the latch without disturbing the system. The two masses will be pushed by the spring and fly apart in opposite directions." I've been doing these videos for more than 10 years... I've watched hundreds of physics lectures.... You just keep evading the subject. "Predict the velocities of m1 and m2. Use whatever equations your model requires, but stick to masses and velocities—no vague proportional arguments." This is a classic conservation of momentum experiment.... Applying Newton's third law the momentum will be split between the two masses. As long as they can move. If one of the masses is too heavy to move all of the momentum will go into the movable Mass. Surprising FYI fact: If you put two very light masses in front of the spring the efficiency with which the spring gives those masses its energy will degrade and less total momentum will be in the masses and more momentum will remain in the spring oscillating. the heavier the masses the less the spring will be oscillating after the masses leave the spring and the more energy you will have in the masses. "Give me exact solutions so I can go get some masses and some springs and put actual numbers in there. Then we can test your theory." How is this my theory? I believe conventional physics believes if m1 is one Mass and M2 is two masses.... The one mass will be going two units of velocity and the two mass will be going one unit of velocity... Momentum will be conserved And once again kinetic energy will not... Kinetic energy will say that twice the energy is going one way and there will be no accounting for where it came from. Paul Nord 12:06 PM (10 hours ago) to me Before the latch is released, what quantity is stored in the compressed spring? You claim Hooke’s law supports your framework, so what does F=−kx tell us about how much of this quantity is in the spring before it pushes the masses apart? Do you say that a spring "stores momentum"? If only momentum exists, how much momentum is ‘stored’ in the compressed spring? We already agreed that mv=MV, and we agree on the ratio of the velocities. But I want to predict the actual values of v1 and v2 given the compression force on the spring and the masses. Standard physics can make this prediction, and I can test that answer with an experiment. Can your framework predict these values? Gary DraftScience 2:12 PM (8 hours ago) to Paul "Before the latch is released, what quantity is stored in the compressed spring?" Why wouldn't I just test the spring with a known quantity, and then just apply hooks law... Twice the compression twice the force "You claim Hooke’s law supports your framework, so what does F=−kx tell us about how much of this quantity is in the spring before it pushes the masses apart?" It tells you how much weight/pressure/force/momentum a given compression will produce. "Do you say that a spring "stores momentum"?" I've been believing that since I was like 7 years old. "If only momentum exists, how much momentum is ‘stored’ in the compressed spring?" Momentum was originally measured in foot pounds... Momentum is just a weight. If you put 9 lb on a spring it contains 9 lb of force. "We already agreed that mv=MV, and we agree on the ratio of the velocities. But I want to predict the actual values of v1 and v2 given the compression force on the spring and the masses." What "you want" in the circumstance seems to have nothing to do with "my want" to discuss the evidence supporting kinetic energy "Standard physics can make this prediction, and I can test that answer with an experiment." A physicist with the screen name physicist Michael did some of these experiments .... Consistent with my prediction the spring gave heavy objects more energy than when the same experiment was done with lighter objects... I would hope we would agree that the "energy" in the spring is absolute... The spring can't have different amounts of total energy in it. "Can your framework predict these values?" You want to conduct a math class is that it? I want to analyze experimental evidence. I've made it clear that I have no disagreement with the conventional mathematical framework... What does MV squared have to do with hooke's law? Paul Nord 2:50 PM (7 hours ago) to me Before we conduct an experiment, it would be good to agree on how we're going to make a mathematical interpretation of the result. I would calculate the velocities by applying the work-energy theorem to the compression of the spring. How would you do it? Yes, please humor me in conducting the math class. We do a lot of math in physics. Gary DraftScience 4:58 PM (5 hours ago) to Paul "Before we conduct an experiment" I was hoping for a lever experiment... What experiment do you have in mind? Are you going to use carts with wheels? An Air Track? A set up I used to do some crude experiments had a lever oriented horizontally with the consistent force of a rubber band used on one side to create an Impulse Force, then I launched pendulums from the other side. "it would be good to agree on how we're going to make a mathematical interpretation of the result." You need to do more than mathematically interpret an idealization... Physical experiments have real variables, and levels of efficiency, that must be adjusted for. "I would calculate the velocities by applying the work-energy theorem to the compression of the spring." So you can't just put a weight on it and see how much compression there is? "How would you do it?" I would hit the fix that one end spring with something of a known momentum. "Yes, please humor me in conducting the math class. We do a lot of math in physics." I would argue most of it contrived and circular based on false axioms. Paul Nord 5:05 PM (5 hours ago) to me I’m asking how your framework predicts the velocities. You said a spring 'stores momentum,' so how much momentum is in the spring before release? How do you calculate v1 and v2 using only momentum conservation? Standard physics makes testable predictions using energy conservation. If your framework is better, it should be able to make the same predictions without using energy. So let’s see it—what’s your calculation? Gary DraftScience 5:38 PM (4 hours ago) to Paul "I’m asking how your framework predicts the velocities." This is insanely redundant, newton's idealization predicts and equal distribution of the Springs stored momentum. "You said a spring 'stores momentum,' so how much momentum is in the spring before release?" You simply test the spring to see how much weight it supports at that compression. "How do you calculate v1 and v2 using only momentum conservation?" If the spring compression was 9 lb you know each of the masses has 4.5 lb of collectible weight/momentum in the horizontal Direction. "Standard physics makes testable predictions using energy conservation." As I have repeatedly stated you can't conserve kinetic energy when transferring it between unlike masses. "If your framework is better, it should be able to make the same predictions without using energy." I clearly haven't used kinetic energy anywhere "So let’s see it—what’s your calculation?"4 Measure the MV in the spring ... See how much weight it supports or hit it with a known momentum impulse. Now that you know how much momentum is in the spring the idealized prediction is that 50% of that momentum will be in each of the objects. Gary DraftScience 7:29 PM (2 hours ago) to Paul I did find the link to the video I did a couple of years ago using a lever as a launcher... Certainly not high enough quality to prove anything... But it certainly indicates good reason for these experiments to be done professionally... The videos less than 5 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UccBd13tYJ4 Paul Nord 7:54 PM (2 hours ago) to me Ok, you've started a statement of the equation. Let me see if I can do the math for you. We've compressed a spring with 9 pounds. I place that spring between m1 = 2 lb, and m2 = 5 lb. The momentum after the spring is released will be 4.5 (is the unit still pounds here?) m1*v1 = 4.5 and m2*v2 = 4.5 So v1 will be 4.5/2 = 2.25 And v2 will be 4.5/5 = 0.9 Help me out with the units for velocity in your system. Is this feet per second? Or miles per hour? Gary DraftScience 10:11 PM (8 minutes ago) to Paul MPH should work just fine.... My crude testing indicates that if you gave a 9 lb object a 1 mph velocity and banged it into a horizontally placed scale it would read about 9 lbs. Paul Nord 11:31 AM (12 hours ago) to me That experiment with the scale is irrelevant to the problem at hand. I’m compressing the spring with a static load—nothing is moving, so there is no initial momentum. Using a spring constant k=50 lb/ft, I calculate these velocities: v1=16.6 mph v2=6.64 mph The ratio v1/v2 is, of course, equal to the ratio m2/m1, as required by conservation of momentum, which we all agreed on. However, if I use a different spring, I get different velocities. But if I understand your system correctly, you claim that any spring that can hold 9 lb will always "store 9 lb" of momentum, regardless of the spring constant. Is that correct? If so, what are your predicted values for v1 and v2? Gary DraftScience 2:01 PM (10 hours ago) to Paul I would argue that the fact that anything traveling 1 mile an hour will produce an impulse weight equal to its mass is hardly irrelevant... but whatever. "any spring that can hold 9 lb will always "store 9 lb" of momentum, regardless of the spring constant." Of course 9 lb doesn't compress "any spring" the same amount... If you're not going to calibrate the spring by testing it then of course you need a spring constant. In this case you established how many pounds of pressure are in the spring 9 lbs... You don't need a spring constant because you already established how much weight is stored in the spring. I would say your original numbers in miles per hour were correct. So v1 will be 4.5/2 = 2.25 mph And v2 will be 4.5/5 = 0.9 mph Paul Nord 3:56 PM (8 hours ago) to me Awesome, now we have a testable prediction. If the velocities come out close to 16 mph and 6 mph, that supports my model. If they’re around 2.25 mph and 0.9 mph, that supports yours. My model also predicts that changing the spring will change the outcome, while you say it won’t. Now, let’s agree on a test method. Have you done video analysis? We could record the motion and track positions frame by frame. I have an air track, but we could also use an air table or pendulums. We might need to agree to using different masses. Ratios can be kept close to 9:2:5 to avoid any concern of bias. What setup do you think would be the most reliable? Gary DraftScience 5:36 PM (6 hours ago) to Paul Don't know where you're really going with this, but I'll try to play along... As stated I was hoping for a lever experiment. Clearly I see no point in doing an experiment that's already been done many times before... And the point would be to get to some controversy for which the evidence is not decisive. So you're claiming that Springs do not store weight/momentum and that they instead do collect kinetic energy. So if I were to crash a five-mass going 10v into a spring and lock the spring at the maximum impulse, I could expect to launch a 20 Mass going 5 velocity with that spring compression. (contrarily, I'm arguing you could only create the same momentum and only launch a 10 mass going five) An experiment I haven't seen is attaching a spring to a very immovable object, compress it a standard amount, and launch a standard amount of mass. Then do the experiment with the same spring compression, with the same standard Mass on both sides of the spring. I believe conventional physics predicts no difference in the velocity of the standard Mass... I would predict the mass launched from the immovable object will be near twice the velocity. Another related subject, is the idea of positive and negative momentum. I clearly argue that any reflection means less energy got into the object the moving object is reflecting from. The classic example of this experiment is to bang elastically a one Mass into a stationary three Mass. Physics claims 150% of the incoming momentum will be transferred to the 3 Mass and 50% will be reflected back. If you use a pendulum to create the one Mass it would mean you're getting 50% of your energy back as a reflection to use again. And you created free extra momentum in the direction of the initial momentum. I certainly don't think that can happen. I would be quite grateful for any experiments you're willing to conduct... I would argue that it's best to use cleaner ratios like two to one, or 3 to 1 ... I think it's best to keep the math simple as possible. "Have you done video analysis? We could record the motion and track positions frame by frame." Frame rates are great if you have a high frame rate camera without a wide angle lens " I have an air track, but we could also use an air table or pendulums." Having Built My Own Air Track and found it a bit unreliable I would just say it needs to be well calibrated and tested... Pucks on an air table appeals to me as it provides an opportunity to introduce angles. "We might need to agree to using different masses. Ratios can be kept close to 9:2:5 to avoid any concern of bias." I have no attachment to these ratios and would prefer a whole number divisions. Paul Nord 10:53 PM (1 hour ago) to me I asked you for a specific testable experiment. We've already gone pretty far down the rabbit hole on this one, and we agreed on how to mathematically interpret the results. Let's focus on that first. For an air table, I’d be cautious about spring placement—it’s easy to introduce spin if the force isn’t perfectly through the center of mass. That would complicate interpretation, so I’d prefer to avoid it. I'll see what I can figure out with the air table. This is a much simpler experiment than Steve’s lever and rocket setup. I don’t know of any way to find a massless rocket that produces a constant force, so that test seems impractical. Also, I never suggested crashing anything into the spring. I’d simply lower a mass onto it and let gravity compress it naturally. Just like a spring scale, it will settle into whatever position that mass produces, with nearly zero velocity the entire time. Now that I'm thinking about it, the little plunger type spring scale might be perfect for this setup. Gary DraftScience 12:04 AM (0 minutes ago) to Paul I asked you for a specific testable experiment." I somehow must have missed that part... I certainly would have suggested a lever experiment. "We've already gone pretty far down the rabbit hole on this one, and we agreed on how to mathematically interpret the results. Let's focus on that first." That's fine, all well done experiments are valuable... Unfortunately if it's already been done 100 times it won't prove much. In this case you're saying that 9 lbs of spring compression (using any spring) will, in an explosion experiment, push both a 2 lb Mass 16.6 mph and a 5 lb Mass 6.64 mph. you have 9*1 in = 2*16.6 + 5*6.64 out thats 9 in = 66.4 out ...that's a lot of free momentum "For an air table, I’d be cautious about spring placement—it’s easy to introduce spin if the force isn’t perfectly through the center of mass. That would complicate interpretation, so I’d prefer to avoid it. I'll see what I can figure out with the air table." That's why I brought up the "lever launcher" ... Much like the small lever in steve moulds video he was using to transfer the energy from the different levels of his Newton's Cradle... If you put a consistent force on one side of the lever, a spring... You can then push different objects with the other side of the lever. This also can guarantee that the lever and spring itself moves exactly the same in both experiments. "This is a much simpler experiment than Steve’s lever and rocket setup. I don’t know of any way to find a massless rocket that produces a constant force, so that test seems impractical." You don't need a massless rocket you just need a "reliably consistent" introduced Force. If you get all the distances right you can collide a moving Mass on one side, and launch another mass from the other side. Or as I suggested use a spring or rubber band on one side to create a consistent impulse. "Also, I never suggested crashing anything into the spring." I didn't either, I merely pointed out that you have to test a spring to calibrate it's scale. What I also pointed out if you want to find out how much spring compression is 9 lbs, without using gravity, you can move the 9 lb at 1 mph and crash it horizontally into a spring and the impulse recorded will be 9 lbs. "Now that I'm thinking about it, the little plunger type spring scale might be perfect for this setup." You're going to put the spring scale between the two masses? Paul Nord Mar 5, 2025, 6:01 PM (22 hours ago) to me Gary, I liked your idea of simply launching a puck with a compressed spring from the side of the air table. Then the two masses involved are basically the mass of the puck and the relatively huge mass of the table. So the table velocity will be nearly zero and the puck will take half the momentum. In classical physics it also takes nearly all of the energy. A photo of the puck is attached. You can see that the mass is 56.04 grams. Given that the rubber band will compress a distance x under full load N, what do you predict for the launch velocity? For my calculation I'll just use m for the mass. I get: v = sqrt(Nx/m). If I understand your system correctly, you say that the velocity will simply be: v = N/m And as long as N and m are both in pounds, v will be in miles per hour. Do I have that all correct? You'll notice that I've added some holes to my puck so that I can increase the mass m and test this equation over a range of values. If you'd like, it's easy to change rubber bands and get a different value for N. Paul  Gary DraftScience 12:22 AM (15 hours ago) to Paul "I liked your idea of simply launching a puck with a compressed spring from the side of the air table. Then the two masses involved are basically the mass of the puck and the relatively huge mass of the table. So the table velocity will be nearly zero and the puck will take half the momentum." A Clear Divergence in our theories is your contention that a non-moving object that doesn't deform will absorb "half the momentum". If you launch the puck against another Puck without a spring... Then you get half the momentum. ""In classical physics it also takes nearly all of the energy."" Don't really understand how a non-moving thing can take all the energy ""A photo of the puck is attached. You can see that the mass is 56.04 grams."" Some general observations and questions: What's the release mechanism? Doesn't look like the weight of the puck will be symmetrical and balanced. ""what do you predict for the launch velocity?"" As I have repeatedly tried to point out i'm not particularly interested exact mathematical predictions. I just want to see comparison results like 2 Mass going 1V versus 1 Mass going 2v ""If I understand your system correctly, you say that the velocity will simply be: v = N/m"" Yes as Newton stated, force will be proportional to Velocity. ""And as long as N and m are both in pounds, v will be in miles per hour. Do I have that all correct?"" if the spring constant is measured in pounds then I'll say for an idealization yes... The problem is idealizations are hard to construct... Anytime you use a piston to push something you're likely introducing some friction... A problem more difficult to correct is the fact that the piston when pushing a lite object will be moving faster and consuming a larger portion of the force you're attempting to apply to the object being pushed. ""You'll notice that I've added some holes to my puck so that I can increase the mass m and test this equation over a range of values."" If you can double the mass and the puck still floats that will be a nice test 1:06 PM (3 hours ago) to me Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm vacationing next week and I've had a bunch of things to get in order. And I've been contemplating how to build a spring release for an air puck. It feels like you’re moving the goalposts and avoiding doing any actual math. As I’ve said before, if your framework can’t make quantitative predictions from values like mass, spring constant, and compression distance, then it’s not really an alternative physics model—it’s just a concept. In the lab, we compare theoretical models to actual measurements. Based on your responses so far, I expect you to attribute any discrepancies to friction or other factors. So let’s agree on a simple procedure: We start with a larger mass and establish how to measure its velocity. If the puck drags slightly at high mass, we expect lower friction at smaller masses when it floats better. Imagine that both of our models predict some velocity, and I’ve arbitrarily set that to 1 mph on my graph. (I expect that you need some calibration factor to get a velocity in mph when dividing pounds by pounds.) So we start with 1 mph or 7 mph or whatever it is. Next, as we decrease the puck’s mass, your model predicts a much greater increase in velocity than mine does. I predict that at one quarter the mass the velocity will be twice that of the first test. Your model predicts that it will be four times the velocity of the first test. That’s a simple, clear test. Do you agree with this approach? Paul Nord 1:36 PM (2 hours ago) to me Forgot the graph... Screen Shot 2025-03-06 at 12.01.33 PM.png Gary DraftScience 4:01 PM (5 minutes ago) to Paul ""I've been contemplating how to build a spring release for an air puck."" I small hole that you can slide a loose pin in might work ""It feels like you’re moving the goalposts and avoiding doing any actual math."" I would argue you're doing the same in reverse... Ignoring experimental evidence and glorifying Mathematics ... Show me one ballistic pendulum experiment where any fraction of ke above the momentum is collected. ""As I’ve said before, if your framework can’t make quantitative predictions from values like mass, spring constant, and compression distance, then it’s not really an alternative physics model—it’s just a concept."" And I have stated that mathematical ideals are not reality... All experiments have variables and they must be reasonably accounted for. You claim there's heat in a ballistic pendulum yet no one has ever measured it. "In the lab, we compare theoretical models to actual measurements." No you dent clay with round objects and assume linear relationships. You roll carts with metal wheels and never account for the angular momentum. etc ""Based on your responses so far, I expect you to attribute any discrepancies to friction or other factors."" Through my own experience doing experiments I have seen how easy it is to lose sight of what you're looking for through the noise of unrecognized or ignored variables. ""So let’s agree on a simple procedure: We start with a larger mass and establish how to measure its velocity. If the puck drags slightly at high mass, we expect lower friction at smaller masses when it floats better."" If there's noticeable drag... Probably best just to shoot them off the edge of a table and measure where they hit the ground... But then there shape might create some airfoil issues... ""Imagine that both of our models predict some velocity, and I’ve arbitrarily set that to 1 mph on my graph. (I expect that you need some calibration factor to get a velocity in mph when dividing pounds by pounds.)"" I would suppose you could just weigh a known Mass with the device and establish a scale of force in pounds. But this raises the issue of the stop on the piston. The stop guarantees that not all the energy in the rubber band will be getting into the objects. And as I pointed out earlier it's also guaranteed that the higher the velocity the less efficient the energy exchange will be as the Piston will consume more momentum. ""So we start with 1 mph or 7 mph or whatever it is. Next, as we decrease the puck’s mass, your model predicts a much greater increase in velocity than mine does."", I say you start with a force... And it is conserved as momentum. ""I predict that at one quarter the mass the velocity will be twice that of the first test. Your model predicts that it will be four times the velocity of the first test."" Seems reasonable that you do 2 to 1 before you attempt 4 to 1 ... But yes my model predicts momentum/force must be conserved. ""That’s a simple, clear test. Do you agree with this approach?"" I think there are enough variables to say it's not that simple and I certainly wouldn't describe it as a perfectly clean test. I stated my preference would be to use something like a lever launcher where the lever and springs motion would be identical for both experiments. But I'll take whatever you're willing to provide with the provision that there are variables to be accounted for. Paul Nord Mar 6, 2025, 4:33 PM (1 day ago) to me ""That’s a simple, clear test. Do you agree with this approach?"" I think there are enough variables to say it's not that simple and I certainly wouldn't describe it as a perfectly clean test. I stated my preference would be to use something like a lever launcher where the lever and springs motion would be identical for both experiments. But I'll take whatever you're willing to provide with the provision that there are variables to be accounted for. I appreciate that real-world variables exist, but that’s why we carefully control experiments and compare models to actual data. Since you agree that your model predicts v=N/m and mine predicts v=sqrt(Nx/m), this gives us a clear way to test which is correct. You also suggested an alternative test—dropping the puck off the table and measuring where it lands. That’s fine, but let’s agree in advance: if we see that velocity scales as 1/m rather than 1/m, what does that mean for your model? Gary DraftScience Mar 6, 2025, 5:06 PM (1 day ago) to Paul ""I appreciate that real-world variables exist"" Yet you describe paying attention as moving the goal post ""but that’s why we carefully control experiments and compare models to actual data."" Well I certainly don't agree that that's done routinely at all... An awful lot of experiments are just contrivances built out of ignoring influencing variables. ""Since you agree that your model predicts v=N/m and mine predicts v=sqrt(Nx/m), this gives us a clear way to test which is correct."" I've probably seen a dozen or so of this type experiment... Done a couple myself. The problem is you don't get 1.4 or 2.0. You get something between 1.6 and 1.8. I would argue that anything over 1.4 shows kinetic energy to fail because that's free energy... But being short of 2.0 is easily explained as losses to system inefficiency. ""You also suggested an alternative test—dropping the puck off the table and measuring where it lands. That’s fine, but let’s agree in advance: if we see that velocity scales as 1/m rather than 1/m, what does that mean for your model?"" I suppose there's a typo there somewhere... My model says same Force same momentum. Paul Nord Mar 6, 2025, 6:39 PM (1 day ago) to me Ah yes. Thanks for spotting the typo. It should have said: “if we see that velocity scales as sqrt(1/m) rather than 1/m, what does that mean for your model?” I think that it is possible to build a low-friction setup with a nice linear spring and get a consistent result that is within a few percent of what the equations predict. Sent from my iPhone Gary DraftScience Mar 6, 2025, 7:02 PM (1 day ago) to Paul I ran across this short video the other day, only 2 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyjUiv3lw1M Seems that rubber bands really can't give back what they get. I'm not suggesting the variables are catastrophically irregular... But they can blemish results. I was just thinking that it might be a good idea to have a stopwatch in the camera frame when doing the experiments so you wouldn't have to entirely rely on camera frame rates. Attachments area Preview YouTube video Energy stored in stretching - is an elastic band the same as a spring? Paul Nord Mar 6, 2025, 11:24 PM (23 hours ago) to me Yes, quite a bit of hysteresis with a rubber band. I have some that are more pure latex that show a high quality factor over a range of motion. They don't lose much energy to heat. A mass suspended from one of these will bounce up and down for a long time. And they will return reliably to the same position when you put a certain amount of weight on them. Paul Nord Attachments 6:35 PM (1 hour ago) to me Here's a quick proof-of-concept video. Obviously, the camera angle wouldn’t allow for precise measurements, but it shows the general behavior that we both expect—when a spring pushes a larger mass, it moves more slowly. I've improved the setup with a better rubber band and a longer spring length. Of course, final measurements will be done on the air table. Let’s agree on the test procedure: First, we run a test at a given mass and measure the speed. Before each test, we both predict the outcome. Afterward, we can discuss how well the setup performed and then repeat the test with a different mass. My claim: Reducing the mass by a factor of 4 will result in twice the speed. Your claim: Reducing the mass by a factor of 4 will result in four times the speed. If additional friction occurs with the heavier puck, it would actually push the result closer to your prediction, not farther away—so this won’t bias the test in my favor. Based on my calculations, we’ll actually predict about the same value at the higher mass: My theory predicts about 2 mph, and yours predicts about 2.5 mph. So I expect we’ll have a lively discussion about measurement precision. Do you have any questions about the setup before we begin? Gary DraftScience 7:47 PM (6 minutes ago) to Paul Thanks for the video and email.... As I have previously stated i'm less than certain of the proof of concept and think results may be far from idealized predictions. I've made a 2 minute and 20 second video explaining my concerns and suggesting a possible better option. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Lwna6KTHY The main problem is, I think, no matter how you do the experiment the rubber band will move twice as fast (relative to the puck) when pushing the liter puck and we'll hit the stop with twice the force (if there was no stop the rubber band would be wobbling twice as fast after the Piston was launched... Indicating less energy got into the objects). Regardless I'd be interested in seeing some of these experiments done and see how much margin of error there is to work with. As stated before, all similar experiments I've seen produce rather indecisive results. More kinetic energy than there should be and less momentum than there should be. Paul Nord Tue, Mar 18, 3:51 PM (20 hours ago) to me Good questions. I would have regarded the plunger as a small fraction of the mass which would be unlikely to change the overall energy loss very much. I printed a second puck where the plunger is part of the mass that gets launched, so the internal stop is no longer an issue. Attached is a picture of the new puck. I think that I can just clamp the brown puck to the table and use it to launch the red one. With 5 spots for extra mass, this gives us a range of options. Once I run the test, I want to be clear on the expected outcome: If the velocity increases by four times when we reduce the mass to one-fourth, your model is right. If it only doubles, my model is right. Do you agree? IMG_8871.jpeg Gary DraftScience Mar 18, 2025, 11:48 PM (12 hours ago) to Paul ""Once I run the test, I want to be clear on the expected outcome: If the velocity increases by four times when we reduce the mass to one-fourth, your model is right. If it only doubles, my model is right. Do you agree?"" I keep trying to point out that this experiment will not produce either result. In a video I made yesterday I play a portion of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFmYHIeM0iY you only need to watch the first 2 minutes... Later in my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyp3s5VsDT4 I show your puck and explain the problematic variables... Later I clearly illustrate a lever launcher and explain how it compensates for the Troublesome variables. In the ball launcher video... Effectively the same experiment you wish to conduct, the platform is given more momentum as you launch heavier objects. I would argue that the dramatic difference in how much the platform moves is a result of the inefficiency of capturing the rubber bands potential energy. If the rubber band is moving something light, the rubber band moves more quickly, and will still be moving quickly when the light object leaves the rubber band. When the rubber band is pushing a heavier object it's moving much slower, and when the heavy object leaves the rubber band the rubber band is moving much slower--- Indicating there is less energy left in the rubber band. I would argue that clearly the two experiments do not collect the same total momentum from the energy stored in the rubber band. Paul Nord 1:53 PM (5 hours ago) to me To minimize any concerns about inefficiencies, let’s make small, incremental changes to the mass of the puck instead of extreme differences. That way, any small experimental imperfections will affect both models similarly, and we can still test whether velocity follows 1/m (your model) or sqrt(1/m) (standard physics). If your model is correct, even small reductions in mass should produce noticeably larger increases in velocity compared to my model. If we see the velocity scaling as 1/m, that would confirm my model instead. This should make the test as fair and controlled as possible. Do you agree? Gary DraftScience 5:49 PM (1 hour ago) to Paul ""To minimize any concerns about inefficiencies, let’s make small, incremental changes to the mass of the puck instead of extreme differences."" That won't fix anything... Springs and rubber bands when directly pushing something cannot give light objects the same energy they give heavy objects. I repeatedly attempted to explain it to you but obviously you're not getting the point. Visualize the rubber band moving faster when it is pushing the lighter object... now imagine as a rubber band passes its peak velocity it begins to move slower than the object it's pushing... But it is still moving very fast but is not in contact with anything so the High Velocity is now just pushing air. In the case of the heavier object the rubber band is moving much slower when the object being pushed disconnects from the rubber band... The rubber band is moving much slower meaning it has retained much less momentum. As is clearly demonstrated in the short video I linked you to... The total momentum created by the rubber band is vastly different when pushing light things versus heavy things. Clearly the rubber band is not expressing the same potential energy in the form of momentum in the two experiments. Paul Nord 6:03 PM (1 hour ago) to me But my claim is that I can use physics equations to calculate the motion of the rubber band. Are you saying that your system can not describe the motion precisely? Gary DraftScience 7:03 PM (15 minutes ago) to Paul What do you want me to say the same thing in capital letters.... As stated: "Clearly the rubber band is not expressing the same potential energy in the form of momentum in the two experiments." Springs and rubber bands cannot "fairly" be used to directly push objects. They will ALLWAYS put more momentum into heavier objects. In other words, the rubber band retains more of the potential momentum the lighter the object you attempt to push. Gary DraftScience 1:32 AM (10 hours ago) to Paul Paul, I made a video on the subject of springs and rubber bands and such, explaining the problem created when they release their energy. In the last 7 Minutes of the video I go over pulleys and levers: https://youtu.be/v9w7JXktdoM?t=1319 in the last 2 minutes of the video I specifically address a modification to your experiment that would fix the problem: https://youtu.be/v9w7JXktdoM?t=1588 Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox ... Paul Nord ...levers and pulleys vs springs Paul Nord 11:07 AM (1 hour ago) to me I’d prefer to keep the discussion in writing rather than through videos. That way, we can refer back to exact points without rewatching things. Can you summarize the specific issue you see with my air puck experiment and how your modification would change the expected outcome? Instead of modifying the setup, I have a simpler way to test our models. I’ll pull the rubber band back with the same force but use different rubber bands with different stiffness (spring constants). Standard physics predicts that the velocity will change because the energy stored in the rubber band depends on both force and stretch distance. Your model predicts velocity should stay the same, since you say only force matters. Do you agree? If I stretch the rubberband back with a mass M, your model predicts the puck (of mass m) will have a velocity: v = M/m Standard physics needs the length the spring is pulled (x) to predict the velocity: v = sqrt(Mgx/m) Your model predicts the same velocity every time. Physics predicts that the choice of rubber band will matter. Gary DraftScience 12:22 PM (4 minutes ago) to Paul ""I’d prefer to keep the discussion in writing rather than through videos. That way, we can refer back to exact points without rewatching things."" You can't illustrate a force diagram efficiently in plain text... I frankly prefer physics videos over physics papers. I was only asking you to watch 2 minutes of video where I illustrate the solution. ""Can you summarize the specific issue you see with my air puck experiment and how your modification would change the expected outcome?"" I've been there and done that... Springs and elastics collect energy more efficiently than they release it.... Specifically they give more of their energy to heavier objects than lighter ones... The solution is to convert the energy with a lever therefore the bias is eliminated. ""Instead of modifying the setup, I have a simpler way to test our models. I’ll pull the rubber band back with the same force but use different rubber bands with different stiffness (spring constants)."" Can't imagine how this could possibly be useful ""Standard physics predicts that the velocity will change because the energy stored in the rubber band depends on both force and stretch distance."" Hook's law says it's proportional to weight ..but whatever ""Your model predicts velocity should stay the same, since you say only force matters. Do you agree?"" My model suggests that momentum/weigh is conserved.... If you change the spring constant you have to change the stretch distance to create the same Force ""If I stretch the rubberband back with a mass M, your model predicts the puck (of mass m) will have a velocity: v = M/m"" My assertion is Newton's assertion... Twice the force twice the velocity ... And if you apply the same force and 1/2 the mass you get twice the velocity "Standard physics needs the length the spring is pulled (x) to predict the velocity: v = sqrt(Mgx/m)" And where did I claim you can predict velocity without the spring constant and the distance of stretch? What I said was you could test the spring and Mark it like a scale. ""Your model predicts the same velocity every time."" Nonsense ... Different amounts of explosive do not create the same explosion ""Physics predicts that the choice of rubber band will matter."" If it's compressed to the same weight it can't matter... But it will remain unreliable and its capacity to give its energy to lighter objects. Paul Nord 12:38 PM (3 hours ago) to me Let’s settle this: If I pull back with the same force but change the rubber band stiffness, what does your model predict? Will the velocity stay the same or change? You already agreed to the equations I provided. Recall the discussion where you just divided pounds by pounds and somehow got miles per hour. Gary DraftScience 3:29 PM (32 minutes ago) to Paul ""Let’s settle this:"" You have to pay attention to my arguments to do that ""If I pull back with the same force but change the rubber band stiffness"" As I've made clear my assertion is rubber bands don't efficiently give back their energy... Stiffness just creates another varying variable... But it doesn't change the fact that lighter objects absorb energy from Springs with less efficiency. ""what does your model predict? Will the velocity stay the same or change?"" My model predicts that a very slow spring (unstiff) can't even create a high velocity... So obviously, less stiff Springs will probably push lighter things less fast. ""You already agreed to the equations I provided."" I agree that in an idealization the math is simple... Momentum in, momentum out... The point I've repeatedly made is you are far from an idealization. ""Recall the discussion where you just divided pounds by pounds and somehow got miles per hour."" I haven't forgotten it, or changed it, .44 m/s is the velocity something acquires dropping one centimeter in gravity... I contend, that a 1 cm drop doubles an objects weight. Ergo, 1 mph is one unit of weight, 2 mph is 2 units of weight, 3 mph 3 units of weight. Paul Nord 3:55 PM (1 hour ago) to me Humor me by imagining that we can do this experiment with an 'ideal spring' and 'zero friction.' So no energy is lost in the spring. What velocity will you predict? Is it still v=M/m as you’ve said before? Also, how would it be different if the spring did hold on to some of its momentum? Where does that momentum go? If momentum is conserved, and the spring keeps some of it, does that mean the total momentum of the puck is now lower than M? Gary DraftScience 5:01 PM (1 minute ago) to Paul ""Humor me by imagining that we can do this experiment with an 'ideal spring' and 'zero friction.' "" I don't see any "good science" point to doing that ""So no energy is lost in the spring. What velocity will you predict? "" I'll say it again... I agree with Isaac Newton twice the force twice the velocity. ""Is it still v=M/m as you’ve said before?"" I don't understand that notation... What is M and m ... Saying it again, Applying the same force a half-mass will go twice as fast. In other words if you have 5 lb of force in the spring... You would "ideally" get 5 lbs of momentum out ""Also, how would it be different if the spring did hold on to some of its momentum?"" The point I've made over and over again, is that it holds a different amount depending on the Mass. If I put two light things on either end of the spring I will get out a different total momentum then if I put heavy things in front of the spring. The spring creates an overt bias in favor of heavier objects. ""Where does that momentum go?"" You've never seen a spring or rubber band oscillate? And if you allow the rubber band to hit a stop obviously the momentum of the rubber band will be absorbed by the stop. ""If momentum is conserved, and the spring keeps some of it, does that mean the total momentum of the puck is now lower than M?"" If I use a piston to launch objects out of a gun, and the piston hits a stop after launching the object, do you understand that the Piston will impart energy into the gun preventing some portion of its recoil... The faster the Piston is moving after launching an object the more energy it imposes against recoil. Paul Nord Attachments 5:11 PM (1 hour ago) to me It’s clear that we aren’t getting anywhere. A real physics model makes quantitative predictions that can be tested. Every time I try to pin one down, you avoid answering, claim ideal physics is pointless, or shift to a different problem. If your model can't even define the variables clearly, let alone predict outcomes, then it isn’t a competing theory—it’s just an opinion. I’m happy to discuss real physics, but I’m not going to keep chasing a conversation that leads nowhere. The setup is ready to go. Just tell me what to measure about the configuration. Then make a velocity prediction. I'll also make a prediction. And we can compare data to theory. 3 Attachments • Scanned by Gmail Gary DraftScience 6:45 PM (13 minutes ago) to Paul "It’s clear that we aren’t getting anywhere." Agreed, the subject was whether leavers and pulleys conserve momentum. It also would have been nice if you would prove it takes 25 times to force to spin something five times as fast. I pointed out that the experiment you're proposing is one I've seen a dozen times already... And none of them produce credible or conclusive results. "A real physics model makes quantitative predictions that can be tested." Real physics attempts to account for variables... You wish to exploit ignorance of them to fool people... Just like the 1700s where they dented clay with round objects and claimed it "proved". "Every time I try to pin one down, you avoid answering " Oh that's just a lie, I stated clearly what my objections were "claim ideal physics is pointless " You're trying to pass off garbage as pristine "or shift to a different problem." Another lie, I pointed out right from the beginning that experiments with springs are troublesome and a lever fixes that trouble. "If your model can't even define the variables clearly " Another lie, i've made it clear that momentum is always conserved... Momentum in momentum out. " let alone predict outcomes " I predicted your results will convincingly prove nothing. "then it isn’t a competing theory " I believe in conservation and momentum you believe in conservation of kinetic energy... You won't do crash tests, you won't do tug of wars, you won't do any experiment that will decidedly prove your theory garbage "—it’s just an opinion." If you had the guts to do the lever experiment the opinion would be proven to be absolute fact. "I’m happy to discuss real physics " Without Force diagrams you can't reasonably discuss physics. " but I’m not going to keep chasing a conversation that leads nowhere." Because you want to pretend bad evidence is good evidence "The setup is ready to go." I've tried to show you two different experiments that Illustrated exactly the same thing... And apparently you're not interested enough to watch the videos. "Just tell me what to measure about the configuration. " You need to guarantee both objects are given the same Force otherwise the experiment is a waste of time "Then make a velocity prediction. " I've repeatedly pointed out the lighter Setup/objects will get less energy from the rubber band and The more mass the more energy from the rubber band... The experiment with light objects might produce 500 total momentum... Heavier objects might produce 2000 "I'll also make a prediction. And we can compare data to theory." I've explained how the experiment is rigged, and unfair, and you're showing two little Integrity to concede the argument. Paul Nord 7:16 PM (3 hours ago) to me You’ve dismissed the experiment before seeing results. That tells me no test will ever convince you. Gary DraftScience 10:07 PM (16 minutes ago) to Paul ""You’ve dismissed the experiment before seeing results."" No I've clearly explained how the experiment cannot produce useful scientific results. You can't make a fair comparison if the two objects aren't given the same energy. Tie five or six rubber bands together and then tie them to your two different pucks 1m and 2m... Separate the pucks by a meter or so and let them go... The one Mass Puck will travel twice the speed and by your theory have twice the kinetic energy... Yet when they collide the Collision will not be moved in the direction of the lighter object showing no evidence of twice the energy. OR launch the two pucks in opposite directions using your device tie a piece of thread to both carts allowing them to have a tug of war... Once again the half-mass puck will have twice the kinetic energy but it won't win the tug of war... Showing the kinetic energy can do no work... And therefore isn't real. ""That tells me no test will ever convince you."" This is like saying no Magician will ever trick me into believing in "magic" ... Most of physics is just contrived deception. Paul Nord Mar 21, 2025, 1:20 AM (1 day ago) to me Wow, full conspiracy mode activated. If mainstream physics is all a deception, what’s the goal? Why would scientists conspire to teach false theories when real, testable physics is used to build everything from rockets to computers? Do go on. Gary DraftScience Mar 21, 2025, 1:53 AM (1 day ago) to Paul ""Wow, full conspiracy mode activated."" The same "conspiracy" that has ignorant people believing in Gods. Physics Woo is a thing... And it started with 1/2vmv ""If mainstream physics is all a deception, what’s the goal?"" Like creationists, the goal is to sell a fake narrative. A mysteriously magical universe. ""Why would scientists conspire to teach false theories"" Billions of dollars of wasted government money... In most cases it's just obedience to indoctrination... Bad Teachers ""when real, testable physics is used to build everything from rockets to computers? "" Basic engineering and trial and error, not physics theories, created the Industrial Revolution. Relativity and Quantum BS weren't necessary for any Innovations. ""Do go on."" You brought up Rockets... If you calculate the kinetic energy of thrust it will not tell you how fast the rocket will move... If you calculate the momentum of the thrust you will predict exactly how much the rocket will move. Single slits in water waves create no interference fringes. Single slits using light can create dozens of fringes and a central Maxima that will be twice the size. Double slit in light with open slits will create two patterns superimposed on each other... The math that perfectly predicts that pattern recognizes the 4 surfaces as the point sources for all the phase geometry. Gravity causes things to get hot as they become more massive... Yet physics teaches a thermodynamic Theory preaching uncompensated for entropy. Clearly gravity is an anti-entropy force. Lenses that magnify are required to bend light on the outside more than the light is bent on the inside... Gravity creates the opposite effect it bends light close a lot and light far away very little. Yet physics preaches a lensing theory that can't possibly create the manifestations they claim. Even Einstein recognized you could never see an Einstein ring because the number of photons would be far too small. Veritasium says electricity isn't transmitted through wires moving electrons... Steve mold says the law of the lever is A fake, and that levers don't conserve momentum... A claim disproven by thousands of years of Human Experience. Then of course there's dark matter, neutrinos, Qbits, entanglement, superposition, etc. all way under-evidenced silly mush. My latest video shows some experiments done by Bruce Yeany crashing blocks... Provides decisive evidence against kinetic energy Theory. Paul Nord Mar 21, 2025, 11:33 AM (22 hours ago) to me Ah, so all of physics is a scam, the entire scientific community is indoctrinated, and billions of dollars are wasted… yet somehow, you alone figured out the real truth? Amazing. Ever wonder why no one in actual engineering or physics takes you seriously? Gary DraftScience Mar 21, 2025, 2:14 PM (19 hours ago) to Paul ""Ah, so all of physics is a scam"" Gratuitous Exaggeration is just one of the factual trespasses you fake Defenders of science commit. ""the entire scientific community is indoctrinated"" The scientific Community clearly puts the conclusion cart way ahead of the evidence horses. ""and billions of dollars are wasted… "" A Higgs boson will never do a single second of productive advancement of The Human Condition. ""yet somehow, you alone figured out the real truth?"" Figuring out you don't have good evidence for your "jumped to conclusions" was something I was already doing at 7 years old. ""Amazing."" Amazing that you frauds get away with saying momentum must be conserved.... Then the next sentence saying you can create it and destroy it anytime you like. You're just a duplicitous hypocrite ... You're the amazingly arrogant person thinking the truth can only be known by the majority. You're just group thinkers. ""Ever wonder why no one in actual engineering or physics takes you seriously?"" What's been demonstrated through every encounter is they are ultimately cowards... Fact is they know their evidence is thin and insubstantial and they don't want to face the fact that they've been duped. I've offered thousands of dollars to be debunked and humiliated by real scientists yet none have taken the easy money. If you can give me a fair price, i'm willing to pay you to play one of my videos and make a video response to the arguments. Paul Nord 5:07 PM (5 hours ago) You won’t test your ideas, won’t make clear predictions, and won’t engage with actual science. Earlier you said that everything is just trial and error and that Gary DraftScience 7:23 PM (2 hours ago) to Paul ""You won’t test your ideas"" More made up facts from science posers... I've spent years offering to finance credible experiments. ""won’t make clear predictions"" Do you concede that just denting the surface of clay with round objects kind of measuring the amount of displaced clay, could lead to a false "impression". ""and won’t engage with actual science."" Actual science is testing through experiment and reasoning... You will do neither honestly. ""Earlier you said that everything is just trial and error and that no measurements really matter."" Another gross perversion by someone claiming to care about the truth... I obviously never said any such thing. ""But now you’re demanding ‘good evidence’."" I clearly articulated the problem and offered a solution... You clearly paid no attention to either. ""and claiming scientists are avoiding tests?"" I ask again how much do I have to pay you to make a public video explaining an error in my video. ""Which is it? Do measurements matter or not?"" I argue that your measurements are fictitious, because the logic of the experiment is catastrophically flawed. Regardless I told you exactly what would happen heavy objects received more energy when directly pushed by a spring or rubber band... If you use the spring to push a lever that corrects the imbalance and a 1/2mass will go twice the velocity. Your insisting that I think your crappy experiment is in fact an idealization and that's a ridiculous expectation. ""You could have saved us a lot of trouble"" If you think your experiment is credible... Do it and publish a video of the results... I will in turn make a video explaining the fraud you're committing. How much do I have to pay you to do the experiment and publish the video? ""if you had just said that everything is guesswork and nothing can be measured or modeled with mathematics."" More made up nonsense from a "science teacher". I made it clear that I think the lever launcher is a highly credible experiment that can be engineered close to the idealization. Paul Nord 1:43 AM (20 hours ago) to me You figured all of this out when you were 7, and it shows. Gary DraftScience 10:03 AM (12 hours ago) to Paul ""You figured all of this out when you were 7, and it shows."" What is showing is your inability to type an honest sentence... What I said was I learned at 7 that humans like you are fairly considered compulsive liars... Silly storytellers who pervert and distort the facts to rationalize ignorant nonsense. You've plainly confirmed you have no reasonable counter arguments to anything I have said, and haven't the integrity to defend your "faith" on a fair battlefield of ideas. Again. how much do I have to pay you to make a video publicly asserting your silly assertion that levers don't conserve momentum and will conserve kinetic energy. 3:24 PM (7 hours ago) to me Ah, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Momentum is a vector, and it's conserved only in closed systems. Your misunderstanding of that—plus your treatment of momentum as if it were scalar—makes it clear you don’t grasp even the basics. I’m also fairly certain you can’t do the algebra needed for an intro physics course. I’m not going to run experiments for someone who openly admits they won’t accept the results. You have no predictive framework and no mathematical model to apply. You’ve already said any outcome I show will be wrong, but you won’t commit to saying how or why. If you think the rubber band isn’t an ideal spring, fine—say how that changes the outcome, make a prediction, and put your claims to the test. But you've clearly said that science is all guesswork. Why test anything? Gary DraftScience 7:26 PM (3 hours ago) to Paul "Ah, you can dish it out, but you can't take it." Take what? All you've got is inaccurate statements and unevidenced fairy stories "Momentum is a vector, and it's conserved only in closed systems." Says you... Show me any experiment where it's not conserved... "Your misunderstanding of that—plus your treatment of momentum as if it were scalar—makes it clear you don’t grasp even the basics." I'm rubber you are glue... You're the profoundly ignorant one who really hasn't examined the evidence. "also fairly certain you can’t do the algebra needed for an intro physics course." How about you do the math for the double slit experiment... Using two open slits "I’m not going to run experiments for someone who openly admits they won’t accept the results." Well that's why I included the offer to pay you... Because I've already proven strings don't lunch objects fairly or equally. "You have no predictive framework and no mathematical model to apply." More lies from a coward who won't say this crap in a public video. "You’ve already said any outcome I show will be wrong, but you won’t commit to saying how or why." You really are a compulsive liar... That's on you asshole... I've made all these emails public and clearly I have repeatedly explained it to you. "If you think the rubber band isn’t an ideal spring, fine—say how that changes the outcome" I said it more than three times... The lighter the object the less of the total energy the rubber band gives to the object being launched. "make a prediction, and put your claims to the test." As I repeatedly stated heavy objects will get more momentum from the spring or rubber band and lighter objects will get less momentum... The higher the velocity the less efficient the spring is "But you've clearly said that science is all guesswork. Why test anything?" All you have is lies huh... I clearly stated innovation is 99% trial and error ...not Theory... Paul Nord Mar 26, 2025, 12:28 PM (1 day ago) to me Let’s go back to the original problem. I compress a spring with a static force equivalent to 9 pounds. I place that spring between two masses, 2 lb and 5 lb, on a frictionless surface. The spring is released. What are the velocities of the two masses afterward? Standard physics gives a clear answer, using conservation of both momentum and energy. You say the system gives different amounts of momentum depending on the masses. So tell me: what are the actual predicted velocities? What is your math? No videos. No metaphors. No ranting about quantum mechanics. Just equations/numbers. If you can’t give a quantitative answer, then your model doesn’t work. It’s that simple. Gary DraftScience Mar 26, 2025, 3:47 PM (1 day ago) to Paul "" Let’s go back to the original problem. I compress a spring with a static force equivalent to 9 pounds. I place that spring between two masses, 2 lb and 5 lb, on a frictionless surface. The spring is released. What are the velocities of the two masses afterward? "" This isn't the original problem but whatever... The problem you're not recognizing is the inefficiency with which springs return energy. A tennis ball for example is said to be only 75% efficient... If it hits a wall with 100 momentums it comes back with only 75. My argument is that the efficiency of Springs increases with an increase in Mass. For example, if you put 1 lb on 9 lbs of spring compression you will not get a 9 fold increase in velocity as compared to 9 lb launched by the 9 lb of compression, as conservation of momentum would demand. The fact I wish you would address is my statement **that the faster the spring is moving when the object being launched leaves the spring the more of the Springs energy won't get into the object being pushed because obviously the spring is still moving very fast but doesn't have anything to push on** lighter object collect less momentum from Any Given spring compression than a heavier object will get from the same compression. Described as a paradox: A 50 lb going 10 miles an hour compresses in spring... Let's say the spring measures 5 units of compression. A 100 lb person going 5 mph pushes on the same spring and registers the same 5 units of compression. Now if you compress the spring to five units and launch the 50 lb person they will only travel 7 mph... The momentum in, will not be the momentum out. Now if you launch the 100 lb they will end up going maybe a 4.9 velocity much closer to the original momentum in. "" Standard physics gives a clear answer, using conservation of both momentum and energy. "" Standard physics measures nothing... Show me the experiment where they measure the momentum in and then measure the momentum out testing a light thing versus pushing a heavy thing "" You say the system gives different amounts of momentum depending on the masses. So tell me: what are the actual predicted velocities? What is your math? "" I've given you the general approximation... The phenomenon has never been tested it may not even follow a linear relationship... I would guess the mass of the spring and the stiffness of the spring would both affect the efficiency of the spring. "" No videos. "" Videos of physics lectures are one of the best things on YouTube... I can't imagine anyone interested in science complaining about science videos. I Have explained the spring problem in numerous videos ... My most recent for example https://youtu.be/ifEcfmT2-gg?t=426 I really wish you would tell me how much I have to pay you to make a video debunking the argument being made in my video. "" No metaphors. No ranting about quantum mechanics. Just equations/numbers. "" I wish you would rant some more on how you don't believe in the law of the lever and think levers don't conserve momentum. Attachments area Preview YouTube video Steve Mould lever paradox ...more Bruce Yeany and Paul Nord Mar 26, 2025, 5:32 PM (23 hours ago) to me If every result you don't like can be blamed on “inefficiency,” then your model isn’t testable. If it’s not testable, it’s not science. You’re just telling a story you refuse to challenge. That’s fine—but don’t pretend it’s physics. Or show me some calculations. Gary DraftScience Mar 26, 2025, 6:11 PM (23 hours ago) to Paul "" If every result you don't like can be blamed on “inefficiency,” "" And ignoring variables is a classic way to deceive. I clearly pointed out that all the inefficiency can be eliminated as a variable by attaching the spring to a lever... You clearly refuse to fix the experiment and wish to deceive... Go ahead as it proves my point you aren't really scientists. "" then your model isn’t testable. "" A physicist who doesn't believe and careful testing is better described as a creationist. "" If it’s not testable "" It is testable you just won't modify the test to isolate Out The Unwanted variables "" it’s not science. "" Your inability to respond in any way to the arguments presented proves you're not science. "" You’re just telling a story you refuse to challenge. "" The story is an absolute fact and if you had any integrity you would tell me how much I have to pay you to refute the story publicly!! ""That’s fine—but don’t pretend it’s physics."" You're the Cowardly Pretender who won't argue with single one of the arguments... You just type maligning garbage ""Or show me some calculations. "" Do the experiment incrementally increasing the mass and then you'll see if there's any calculatable pattern to the loss of momentum. 10:13 AM (7 hours ago) to me Still no calculations. If your theory only works with a lever and falls apart otherwise, it’s not physics—it’s an excuse. Real theories make predictions. You haven’t made a single one. Gary DraftScience 11:18 AM (6 hours ago) to Paul ""Still no calculations "" What's the "calculation" that predicts a tennis ball only returning 75% of its momentum? ""If your theory only works with a lever and falls apart otherwise "" More evidence you don't pay any attention to any arguments made.... And quite duplicitous of you to concede it works for levers when you claim levers don't conserve momentum. The theory also works perfectly to explain why ballistic pendulums never ever conserve any sensible portion of kinetic energy. I recently showed a video of colliding blocks again perfectly proving no conservation of kinetic energy. ""it’s not physics—it’s an excuse."" And you are pathetically dishonest ""Real theories make predictions"". Real theories are based on real credible evidence... Why don't you explain to me how in the 1700s when they dented clay with round objects they were doing good science. ""You haven’t made a single one."" And you haven't counted a single argument I have made... The fact is I have told you exactly how your experiment is flawed and instead of providing some kind of reasoning explaining how rubber bands always produce exactly the same Force all you have done is fart in my direction. Paul Nord 11:10 AM (11 hours ago) to me You’re ranting about tennis balls and clay dents instead of showing a single calculation. Physics isn’t about feelings—it’s about math and predictions. You still haven’t given either. Gary DraftScience 12:45 PM (10 hours ago) to Paul ""You’re ranting about tennis balls and clay dents instead of showing a single calculation."" Show me the calculation for the tennis ball... It loses 25% of its momentum where's your calculation. You're a teacher and you can't do the calculation... What you don't know any geometry or algebra or anything... Provide the calculation or you're an asshole ""Physics isn’t about feelings"" Clearly your butt hurt ""—it’s about math and predictions."" No it's about accurate statements... You can't make any... levers do obey the law lever and they do conserve momentum you're an idiot "You still haven’t given either." You're an irrational coward who hasn't been near the subject this entire thread. Paul Nord 1:19 PM (9 hours ago) to me Still no equations? If we define the tennis ball's downward direction as positive, its initial momentum is: pi=mv After the bounce, its velocity is upward (negative), and its momentum is: pf=−0.75mv The change in momentum is: Δp=pf−pi=−0.75mv−mv=−1.75mv That change must be transferred to the Earth, so: pEarth=1.75mv You can find this exact reasoning in any physics textbook from the last 200 years. I assume you’re going to argue that momentum can’t be negative. That would just confirm a fundamental misunderstanding of vector quantities—and the equations we use to describe them. I'm not hopeful that the math above will help, but there it is anyway. Gary DraftScience 5:23 PM (5 hours ago) to Paul ""Still no equations?"" I've given you the general idealization equation... Mv in equals MV out. And I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your experiment is far from an idealization. I have repeatedly stated the inefficiency with which elastic propellants give back stored compression has not been tested by your science. As I stated I've seen maybe a dozen variations of the experiment without exception when you add up the velocity of the object propelled and the object recoiled much less total momentum is produced if one of the objects is very light in weight. There's a Steve mold video where he's demonstrating spin in his demonstration you can see that when a ball is bounced off a surface if it's rubbery it oscillates a great deal on rebound... Obviously losing a portion of its rebounding momentum. He also had no equation for the amount of energy lost to that oscillation... Because it hasn't been tested. ""If we define the tennis ball's downward direction as positive, its initial momentum is: pi=mv After the bounce, its velocity is upward (negative), and its momentum is: pf=−0.75mv"" First off I'm sure different tennis balls produce a different amount of rebound efficiency... The .75 figure is just a general figure gleaned from a Google search ""The change in momentum is: Δp=pf−pi=−0.75mv−mv=−1.75mv"" I would argue the 1.75 it's absolute nonsense... There's merely 75 in the ball as linear motion... And the other 25% is oscillations in the rubber of the ball. ""That change must be transferred to the Earth, so: pEarth=1.75mv"" I would say Obviously you have no evidence the Earth absorbed any energy or momentum. This is silly assumption that the Earth absorbs twice the energy is easily debunked by another Steve mould video where he bounces a glass bead off of a surface 256 times... Clearly each time the bead bounced it didn't put twice its momentum into the surface. ""You can find this exact reasoning in any physics textbook from the last 200 years."" The last 200 years is a lot of suspect sloppy physics. And that bad science isn't going to be fixed by your kind of close-minded, textbook thumping, non-critical thinking bad scientist. ""I assume you’re going to argue that momentum can’t be negative."" Negative momentum is nothing better than anti-energy... Ridiculous nonsense ""That would just confirm a fundamental misunderstanding of vector quantities—and the equations we use to describe them."" I understand those equations don't work for rockets ballistic pendulums collisions rotating masses levers pulleys etc... ""I'm not hopeful that the math above will help, but there it is anyway."" What would be helpful is more experimental evidence... But I've already got all the credible experiments on my side. Paul Nord 6:45 PM (4 hours ago) to me You clearly have a lot of energy for these conversations, but if you want to participate in real physics, I’d recommend taking a basic math or physics course. Start with algebra, then study Newton’s laws with actual equations. You might be surprised how much you’ve misunderstood. Gary DraftScience 10:47 PM (1 minute ago) to Paul "You clearly have a lot of energy for these conversations" Yes I think the truth matters... A lot. At least you have once again demonstrated no conspiracy required... Just bad science by lazy, arrogant, pontificating dupes. "but if you want to participate in real physics " The simulation I have created is real science, and the theory behind it is real science... Your religion, will eventually find its way to the ash heap of History, and you may well be recognized for your role in embarrassing human intelligence. "I’d recommend taking a basic math or physics course." And I'd recommend you take your head out of your ass. "Start with algebra, then study Newton’s laws with actual equations." I am applying Newton's actual equations it is your science that lies about what Newton said... He never wrote f = Ma "You might be surprised how much you’ve misunderstood." Not going to happen, with every month the evidence I compile becomes larger and larger... And you're obvious evasions become more and more obvious. Paul Nord 12:50 PM (4 hours ago) to me Yep. You're a full meltdown. The insults, the martyr complex, the self-declared victory lap — all classic signs that you are out of arguments and know it. You’ve abandoned math, denied physics history, and now you’re just ranting and calling names. I’ve got nothing else to prove here. Good luck with your crusade. Gary DraftScience 5:04 PM (13 minutes ago) to Paul ""Yep. You're a full meltdown. "" As evidenced by the fact that I keep making physics arguments that you pretend weren't made. ""The insults "" Potty mouth heal thyself ""the martyr complex "" More obvious is your, those who can't teach complex ""the self-declared victory lap "" Well a lot of fuel was wasted on lapping your pathetic invasions... Might as well take the one fun lap ""— all classic signs that you are out of arguments and know it."" Just the fact, I've already outed you on that one ""You’ve abandoned math "" Just a lie... Irrational formulas that don't cohere to reality should be abandoned. ""denied physics history "" Hilarious coming from the man who denies the law of the lever, and thinks denting clay with round objects is credible science. ""and now you’re just ranting and calling names."" You're arrogance and pretentiousness is a matter of record ""I’ve got nothing else to prove here."" Well you could admit you step on kittens when you're not doing garbage science ""Good luck with your crusade."" And bad luck with your ambition to pervert Young Minds... Get what you deserve Space: A field of positions ... Cannot be created or destroyed Force: Elements of motion... Bits of speed of light/force momentum ... Fixed Elemental Force Mass Matter: Bits of mass that have no Elemental motion... To move they must be continually pushed by force. Energy: A quantity of force ... Only measurable as a differential... May be in the form of free Force or Force pushing matter. Momentum: A quantity of energy/ force/ weight/ Weight: Just a measure of momentum / pressure Pressure: An amount of force measured as a differential Work: The action of a Force exchange ... Complete or incomplete Time: A consequence of the speed of force not being instantaneous. The universe has slowness Interaction: An event caused by the meeting of force with an opposing velocity direction vector. Electricity: The migration of force through conductive atoms... Electrons are the force carriers. Force carrier: An electron or proton being pushed by a force differential... Larger objects can carry that differential. Magnetism: A polarized pattern of force that can affect, and is produced by polarized objects. Light: Bits of electron Force that arrive at an atomic surface with a specific pattern/spread and frequency. |
|