Видео

I think the attention he is receiving at the moment is unwanted attention as most are calling him out for the complete loon that he is!😅 He will be blocking away for a while lol.😀👍

@@michaelfowell223 what attention is he getting from who?

@@pyrrho314 Hi there Pyrrho, hope you are well. He isn't getting any genuine attention for his nonsense, just a flurry of comments on his latest tripe and folk calling a spade a spade, no doubt they will all be deleted and blocked shortly.👍😊

What is fuck is wrong with these people?! Look at the comment reply I got. @mindlessmarbles9290 2 hours ago @BasedBass1 Let's start with acceleration. Acceleration is in units of m/s^2 because acceleration is the rate of change in velocity (m/s). So you take a velocity (m/s) and divide it by a time unit (s) giving you m/s/s. This is then abbreviated as m/s^2. Thus, the units of gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2, because each second you gain 9.8 m/s of velocity. This is all completely rational and this is not difficult to follow. Reply @BasedBass1 1 hour ago (edited) ​ @mindlessmarbles9290 This has already been argued, dropping something in gravity in 4 distances of freefall for example isn't 4 times the energy. the 1st unit of distance it will go half the speed because gravity is dependent on time, it takes time to gain the 9.8m of distance in freefall. If you were to drop a ball down a staircase totaling 4 separate distances, it would be 4 times the energy. However, this is not the same for dropping objects in freefall. For every 1 second of gravity, gravity will give 9.8m of force. From what I recall it takes time for the 9.8m to apply. Simply put there is no point in squaring 1 second. its a rate at which gravity imposes its force. for every 1 second gravity will give you 9.8 meters of force.

9.8 meters of force? Lmao🤣​@@mindlessmarbles9290

Oh yeah because it's probably all part of the new world order and all these science teachers are all free masonry members and reptilian shape shifters who gather together in their lodges and meet at party's such as the bohemian grove, secretly coming up with ways to cheat the truth and deceive the world...oh boy i used to be into conspiracy theories like 10 years ago

@@disparslab326 I think the trick is seeing the real conspiracy among much disinformation designed to confuse.

@@disparslab326 lmao this might as rather be his theory. It makes just as much sense as anything he says sometimes.

Thank you glowing! I want to test his limits of coming up with excuses, but as always, eventually he just ignores it and pretends it doesn't happen. Or he just doesn't watch it and calls it bullshit straight away because, as always, 'something must be wrong' because it doesn't make sense to the one and only brain that truly understands physics.

thanks Michael! It just gets funnier and funnier the more he keeps claiming that it's all a bunch of BS and all the experiments are crap. Again, at this point it's just pure psychology and it would be a total waste of my time dealing with that. I'm too young to keep dealing with this. I'll continue doing different experiments just for the public at large. It's time to move on and to forget about him. After all these years and dozens and dozens of experiments later, he's still in full denial of everything that has been showned to him, so yeah, a completely hopeless case. Take care!

@@disparslab326 it's good that you can see the funny side Dispar, after all he is a joke! I will continue to do experiments too, just busy outdoors at the moment, I'm also building a workshop so I have a quiet place to tinker with my bikes but will also double up as a Science workshop. You take care too my friend. 👍😊

Substituting the *'v'* in ½mv² by √(2gh) gives: ½m2gh thus. 😎

I'm doing everything i can to settle this for once and for all, such that there is no more logical reason to constantly deny the existence of kinetic energy. Of course Goofy will continue to do that, but he is a hopeless and desperate lost case. This is for everyone who doubts kinetic energy. I looked back at your video from 2 years ago and he said things like "the faster the object moves through the clay, the less it will stick to it." So is this the end for Goofy's theory? Absolutely not! He will just keep drawing and drawing and make arguments for why it doesn't make sense and why it created this 'wrong' result.

@@disparslab326 Thanks for checking that out and for being so determined. You've invested a lot of money as well as time and energy and frustration dealing with his nonsense excuses. Having those proper time / speed measuring devices have probably been one of, if not the most valuable asset you've invested in. It still amazes me that he expects to be taken seriously when he's invested nothing in all these years - not his much talked about money nor all the spare time he has sitting on his hands.

PS bang goes his desperate claim that spherical masses were giving the wrong result.

Thank you Stephen, since it is cylindrical, the only information we need is the height. The diameter always remains the same, in contrast with a sphere. So no need to fill it up and measure the volume. As you can tell, twice the velocity gave us roughly 4 times the height. When calculating the volume with the formula, that will give us also the same result. Filling it up and measuring the weight will also be the same then. No?

@@disparslab326 I just thought it might be a little more accurate measure of the same thing than reading a mm scale ruler by eye with possibly very slight (fractions of a mm) differences in depth (around the circumference) that are hard to determine. it's not a deal reaker for me, Dispar - I perfectly accept the accuracy is good enough for disproving Gary's claims. I was only thinking every bit of extra accuracy is useful to know, so we can be as sure as humanly possible whether this is a better method than clay or anything else. I'm not picking holes in your work mate - I'm only making suggestions in case you or anyone else might feel they are worthwhile. I guess you would need scales like Michael's that can measure mg - Can;t remember whether yours already do and can't check right now as I'm screen recording something. I agree it's unlkely to be worth the extra effort anyhow and there may be extra problems with my idea anyhow, such as ensuring that whatever you filled it with wasn't accidentally more compressed in one example than another - flour could be vulnerable to that. When I used liquid to measure the displacement, that had it's own problems too - the surface tension causing a slightly raised surface for instance. I bet even if we used some high tech laser method or whatever, it wouldn;t make the slightest difference to Gary anyway. Look forward to any more experiments you do.

Yes seems like an obvious thing to use 😂. I just did some tests with a heavier weight (so hopefully it wont bounce upwards again) and i let it drop from 9 times higher (3 times as fast) and it produced around 9 times the displacement! Will make a video soon proving the quadratic relationship of kinetic energy

@@disparslab326 Yes, quadratic: mgh = ½mv² because: v = √(2hg) of course.

@@_John_Sean_Walker Hi John, here is an update (little bit disappointing): I noticed that now the block of foam bounced a little when i dropped the mass from 1 height, therefore some energy was lost. So i placed some weights on the block to hold it still. The mass then produced a little bit more displacement. Here are my results: Dropped from 1 height (11cm): 0.9cm displacement Dropped from 4 height (44cm): 2.9cm displacement Dropped from 9 height (99cm): 5.2cm displacement 2.9/0.9 = 3.2 (instead of 4 theoretically) 5.2/0.9 = 5.7 (instead of 9 theoretically) As you see, the results are in between the predictions of kinetic energy and momentum (if momentum is energy). I will try out clay now

@@disparslab326 I don't know the shape of the probes, but the ones in the video had a pretty flat shape, so more cylindrical shapes would do better.

This was the probe: discountoffice.be/p/schietlood-op-blok-1-kg/ ​@@_John_Sean_Walker

Yes i could do that John, but the displacements are to shallow i think. I might try out clay. Or i will try out heavier weights and higher heights.

@@disparslab326 If the cast is set and it wants to pop out easily, you can simply weigh the casts. Yes, clay is a good choice, but you have to keep it in an air-tight box, since differences in moisture gradient can give different results. Steve knows all about it. 😄 Michael has an interesting new video btw. 🖐

@@disparslab326 Plaster is not that expensive, and it sets fast. You can do all kinds of funny things with it. Hornbach Belgium KNAUF Adhesive Rotband Plaster 25 kg €18,-

Hey Michael, the weather was also nice here finally since months of rain and no sun. I've been doing some kayaking and cycling. Yes, he switched to his particle physics once again, only to come back after a while and repeat his 'momentum is energy' mantra claiming that physics has zero evidence and everything that proves him wrong is a piece of crap. He still hasn't responded to this video and probably never will, as it is so laughably obvious that yes momentum has to be subtracted when one of the carts goes in opposite direction. I'm now focusing on experiments where you drop 1 mass 4 feet and 4mass 1 feet.

@@disparslab326 Hey there Dispar, great to hear you have been experiencing the good weather too, it's been so wet, dull and gloomy here for so long the sun just beckons me to the outdoors. Kayaking and cycling sounds great fun, I was a very keen cyclist in my younger days, used to compete in road racing and do regular 10 mile Time Trials, oh the good old days.. I've been mainly slogging away in the garden as it will soon be the long summer break from schooling for the children, so trying to get everything prepared and ready for them to play out Im building a tree house just in case the sun doesn't last so they can still be outdoors but indoors lol I'm sure he will most likely avoid your videos from now on Dispar, he is a slimey character with not one honest bone in his body, if he is avoiding you though, you know you are doing a good in presenting evidence, as the evidence doesn't lie unlike some moron we could mention.👍😊

hahaha

Interesting, yes i could definitely try that out!

Yes you predicted correctly! He repeats and repeats it like a mantra on a daily basis. Ofcourse he ignored this video

Apparently, youtube's algorithm has decided to make this video go viral, eventhough that was not my intention. This video (as well as many others) are response video's to a certain person who firmly believes that conventional science is broken, especially when it comes to conservation of momentum and energy. According to this person, kinetic energy is a fable and momentum is only real energy. He has been proposing many different types of experiments that should prove him right, but i have been providing many experiments that prove him wrong and conventional science right. The lever experiment is one of his many experimental proposals .

So his claim is that when you place a 1mass object, twice as far from the fulcrum of the lever, that it will be launched twice as fast than the 2mass object at half the distance from the fulcrum. The truth is however that it will only go 1.41 times faster (square root of 2) theoretically.

Thanks Stephen! Well if you watch his latest video, he does it by simply ignoring the evidence and saying that conventional science has zero evidence. He now only emphasizes to show that it takes 25x the gasoline to 5x as fast etc.....as this is an experiment that you can't find anywhere. However ofcourse he ignores all the dozens of other experiments that he has proposed, but all of them proved him wrong. If we can't proof that it takes 25x the fuel, than all the other experiments become invalid.

​@@disparslab326 And if anyone bothered doing a scientific study of gasoline needed to go 5 x faster, he'd start making claims about rocket fuel, knowing we don't have a rocket. If we had a rocket, he'd make it about something else we don't have - a Sherman tank lol - just like he knows none of us have a wrecking ball or a bowling alley - whatever it is we haven't got, that's what he wants to use. 3.5 years ago he didn;t think any of us had springs just because he didn't - so he could make claims he never thought any of us would be able to test, just because he couldn't or wouldn't spend a penny on springs. He was wrong. Levers never even crossed his feeble mind until I used one to achieve the two velocities. He took a week off and came back claiming levers couldn't do this. A month or so later, levers were central to his claim. Like MindlessMarbles say's, he's a PoS. He cited airtracks were the only way to test because he didn;t think any of us would ever have one. Wrong again. He didn;t think we would ever have timers or slo mo cameras just because the only ones he was willing to invest in were for his "outdoor pursuits" we can only imagine lol! His attempts to compete on the cheap by making a so called airtrack out of waste pipe and a leaf blower were just laughable from the "man" endlessly bragging about money. He's given us plenty of entertainment though so I guess he's earning his keep without having to actually invest in a clown costume or car that falls apart. His ideas fall apart quicker than any clown car.

We don't know the exact amount of energy from the spring, nor do we know how much energy is consumed by the joist. So we have to measure the velocity of one probe, to predict the velocity of the other. The predictions from the equations were confirmed by the experiment. Equations: v1 = v2 × √(m2/m1) v2 = v1 × √(m1/m2) Derived from: E = ½ * I * ω² I = m × r² ω = θ/t ω = v/r mgh = ½mv²

It's the hand release Ian, i know exactly how slowly i should let the one mass go 😉

@@disparslab326 You should try my method - I just fill the room with a different gas that gives exactly 1.4 x the result.

@@disparslab326 You should try my method No 2 - I go through hundreds of elastic bands until I find one that gives exactly 1.4 x the result. Sometimes I have to sand down a band to achieve this. Then I have to edit the video to make it look like it was not edited. Yes it's a lot of work but it's worth it to stop anyone realising how nature really works. That would be terrible - if people knew we could have free energy as measured by KE OR by momentum.

​​Funny thing is, this is literally what we would have to do to fake it: spend hours and hours to find out how to fake it. Within this experiment, these were literally the first trials and i got 1.4 straight away. According to Gary, i'm such a desperate religious nutcase that i'm wasting dozens of hours editing and finding out the precise setup to make it come out my way..obviously i know the truth and i got these results within the first few trials, the same for all the previous experiments...how do you explain that? Well you can't , you would have to lie!.​@@stephenbrough8132

Of course not MM, if it doesn't come out his way, it absolutely MUST be either flawed or cheated. You can notice it once again in his latest response where he agressively rants about the same things he has been saying 10.000 times by now : "do you really believe it takes 25 times the fuel to spin a motor 5 times as fast?" "for 350 years, your silly science has provided zero physical evidence" "It doesn't make rational sense" , "it's a silly formula' , bla bla bla He even still rejects the elastic collision where you slam a 1mass ball into a 3mass ball. I have demonstrated this so many times, covering all the possible flaws and recording it from every angle, yet here he is, still rejecting it because it simply 'doesn't make sense', because momentum is the only thing there is and it's impossible to subtract momenta. Once again no matter what i do, no matter how many times i adjust the experimental setup, it just never comes out the way he thinks it should. We have enough evidence by now that this man is probably the most impossible person ever to be convinced by physical evidence. It's literally the equivalent of a flat earther.

@@disparslab326 He's proved he never really cared about the evidence because once he runs out of excuses (other than making generic and baseless accusations of cheating) he falls back on "this doesn't make sense to me and until you can draw a picture for me I will ignore the evidence". He's literally blaming the world for his lack of ability to understand the concepts.

@@glowing571 Remember when PhysicistMichael showed the spring launch two carts apart? Draft said the experiment must be wrong because it didn't make sense to him and that was why he knew the experiment was wrong. That right there was the final nail in the coffin in him losing the argument.

​@@mindlessmarbles9290He doesn't have an argument, he just makes fantastical claims of stupidity! The spring launching of the two carts by Physicist Michael highlights his complete lack of understanding, in his thinking, there is only momentum in a compressed spring, that is not moving I should add, he doesn't agree with potential, but even if he believes springs store momentum, it would have to be potential momentum, which I've not heard him say as he doesn't seem to agree with potential of any kind If DS doesn't understand then it must be wrong, as we all know he is a genius and we are all jealous and in a conspiracy to suppress his genius from entering the mainstream and letting his profound knowledge shine and rewrite all the physics books and have his Nobel prize and statue erected in his honour, we are a mean bunch.😀👍

@@mindlessmarbles9290 Yeah, he's beyond parody. I remember when he was getting annoyed when people referred to him as Draft Intuition but what else is that when he dismisses nearly all of mainstream science because it doesn't feel right to him?

He's just such a dishonest PoS, it's hard for me to believe anyone can be this narcissistic as him.

Physicist Michael shows in his videos that it is Angular Momentum: r1 * m1 * v1 = r2 * m2 * v2

​@@_John_Sean_Walker Hi John - Yes, I've no doubt that addresses the fundamental cause. But I'm pretty sure Goofy's original claim only really attempted to (wrongly) address what you might call the "effect" of that cause - How much energy is imparted to the objects once launched and the means of accounting for it - KE or his method. Sadly for him, KE keeps winning. Since his original simplistic claim he's been in denial or disagreement about BOTH the cause (the concept of angular momentum) AND as a consequence, the effect that has on launched objects (how fast and far each mass will go - how much energy each moving mass will have once free of the lever) - All because he's so desperate to disprove KE - most likely because a female was involved. But I think it's fair to say he started with objecting to KE first, calling it "girly physics", and when his experiment proposals proved him wrong, he probably only then started throwing in angular momentum in an attempt to sound like he knew more than he does. (I personally never claimed to know anything about it - I've only picked it up a bit as we went along, doing his experiments for him, learning a bit off you guys). I would guess the only reason he now has to deny angular momentum (or misrepresent it) is because that stands in the way of his quest to prove Emilie Du Chatelet etc wrong. That sees to be his main mission in life lol! His claim is that when launched individually, the objects would have different energy according to KE rules, thus supposedly proving KE wrong. ie, he wrongly believes the KE formula means we will miraculously get more energy by launching at r2 than r1. And the reason he believes that is because he also wrongly believes the object WILL (or SHOULD - if we didn't keep cheating!) go twice as fast just because it's launched from r2. Yet it won't. I've no doubt the reason it won't is for the reasons you quoted. Gotta dash anyway - in demand - to go get a loaf!

@@stephenbrough8132 Remember Steve. You cheated in every experiment and DIspar cheated in every experiment and Ian cheated in every experiment and every scientist who ever lived cheated in every experiment. In fact nature cheats every time it shows Drafty the truth. It's all one big conspiracy led by reality itself to get one over the god-emporer of physics but he will eventually prevail. One day we will rename existence the Gary-verse and crown him King Mosher the first 😆

@@glowing571 Sounds like an episode of Red Dwarf lol! "The Gary-Verse"

@@stephenbrough8132 Ha ha! It does. Except Red Dwarf is very funny and Mosher is just pitiful.

Thanks Michael, just like any experiment, he is still forcefully claiming the one mass at twice the distance, should come out twice as fast. And you are right, he is now ignoring my epxeriments once again. He is only focusing on Ian. I will continue doing this with different levers and different weights, different rubber bands and also springs. When the results are all consistent, well, that must be a sign right? Something that we might call 'proof' perhaps? No matter how many times i will repeat it in whatever way, mine will all be garbage and that one particular experiment done by Stephen is the one and only decisive experiment and proof of!

​@@disparslab326You can never convince a religious zealot that there is no god Dispar. He will continue to claim free energy, as momentum is not energy and he doesn't understand the difference. Today he claimed Ians probes rotating costs energy, yet the hypocrite doesn't find it a problem in Steve's experiment? Have a good one my friend. 👍😊