Draft Physics

Welcome!

Hi Draft Physics! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There are comments on your talk page I was not allowed to respond to so I made a video summing up my "physics arguments" relevant to the subject of W=FxD. Apparently I'm not allowed to post a link to that video so I will suggest you do a YouTube search with the keywords draft science and the phrase An absolutely irrefutable logical argument. The video debunks what you say about friction being constant regardless of velocity. And your statement that gravity gives and takes energy based on units of distance traveled. Draft Physics (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Thrust for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Thrust for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines;

I've made specific claims defending Newtonian mechanics... newton is very well sourced. The simple fact is the article you have posted is a discredit to science. And the actual history of understanding.

they are not for use as a forum or chat room.

If you can't even talk on the talk pages you're just showing Wikipedia to be a sham.

If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages.

I have accusations I don't have questions. The fact is you have no regard for the truth. And your behavior is on the record.

See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you.

Vague gibberish used to afford you the right to bail out of any conversation you can't win. I ask you to Please refrain from abusing the guidelines to propagandize your religious ideology by censoring needed discussion. Draft Physics (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello daft. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Work (physics). DrPhysics999 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello troll, I can't find your account page so I'm guessing you have no authorization to make threats. But who cares about a bang rules when you're siding rules... it's Wikipedia rules are for peasants. Draft Physics (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Work (physics). VQuakr (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I certainly contend to have done nothing unreasonable malicious hateful or anything to degrade science. Your threat shows Who You Are and what you are about ...the Integrity of Wikipedia would be best served if you were blocked. Draft Physics (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dant physics please have a look at how to properly cite sources on wiki pedia. Thanks DrPhysics999 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi fluck physics please don't add patronizing to your fascism it creates a style conflict... At least that's what all the celebrities say.. or Maybe you should ask a group of Catholics they do good No evidence dogma science. Draft Physics (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Daft Physics. Another simple way to prove you are wrong and Galileo is correct is to derive d=1/2at^2 from simple calculus. You can experimentally verify this here

https://cii.wwu.edu/showcase2015/boudreaux/resources/PHYS_123_mechanics_lab_1_kinematics_in_one_dimension.pdf

you will need a stop watch and string. You’re welcome from the wonderful world of physics DrPhysics999 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting an experiment is not doing an experiment. 300 years and that's the best you could do... You're showing your science to be pitiful Draft Physics (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You can also look at calorimeter data and how that increases as velocity squared. CERN open data has a lot of data from various experiments for your pleasure DrPhysics999 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Vague references to data isn't the scientific argument. You're obligation is the show an experiment... Like a gun experiment for example, where you show that the projectile produces thousands of times more watts of energy/work/heat then the gun recoil. Draft Physics (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is a reference showing the relation between momentum and energy in low energy atomic collisions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0168117684870895

Here it is shown how kinetic energy increase as a function of angular velocity

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7346483

Figure 1 here shows that energy behaves exactly as physicists expect and the calibration of the calorimeter to what was calculated with physics are exactly the same

https://cds.cern.ch/record/2203514/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-015.pdf BevenEvenSeven (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Accelerator physics or physics initiated with some kind of heated or excited material has little to do with any actual measured values. This is how they measure the mass of an electron and I would argue if they used momentum instead of mV squared. Your atomic weight would be your actual mass weight. vMV is a 300-year-old claim, you really should have some more visibly real, and material, physical examples. Show me a car crash where twice the speed produce four times the damage. Draft Physics (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This is how they measure the mass of an electron and I would argue if they used momentum instead of mV squared. Your atomic weight would be your actual mass weight.

Ok perfect! You made a claim that "this is how they measure the mass of an electron." Please, in exquisite detail, explain to everyone on this page how this was initially done. Who were the historical figures and what did they do? Did they use kinetic energy? If so, where? Your counterargument that you just made crucially depends on this, and you have claimed many times you understand physics and the history of physics better than anyone else. So please enlighten us with your superior history and physics knowledge and give a description of how the electron mass was derived. We are waiting. Selbram (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Draft Physics has been presented with real evidence multiple times debunking his misunderstanding of physics in multiple different ways. He has frivolously rejected and denied evidence on every possible count. In one specific case, he literally said something that amounted to saying that a given experimental result was paradoxical only because it conflicted with his pet theory.

Draft Physics is not here to be a honest interloper or promote truth in any way. His youtube channel DraftScience has been consistent in demonstrating this for years. Selbram (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Draft Physics has been presented with real evidence multiple times debunking his misunderstanding of physics in multiple different ways.

Please provide links to the "real evidence" ...hopefully something without peanut butter smeared all over it

He has frivolously rejected and denied evidence on every possible count.

Do you think denting clay with round objects is a good scientific way to determine an object's energy? Do you think ground friction is exactly the same per foot regardless of velocity?

In one specific case, he literally said something that amounted to saying that a given experimental result was paradoxical only because it conflicted with his pet theory.

Just one of your many Fables... More claims without evidence

Draft Physics is not here to be a honest interloper or promote truth in any way.

I am rubbery you are obviously gluey

His youtube channel DraftScience has been consistent in demonstrating this for years.

Proven by the fact that I have offered thousands of dollars to be honestly debunked. Draft Physics (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide links to the "real evidence" ...hopefully something without peanut butter smeared all over it

Any textbook on thermodynamics or undergraduate physics lab will do.

Do you think denting clay with round objects is a good scientific way to determine an object's energy? Do you think ground friction is exactly the same per foot regardless of velocity?

This is an overt strawman (which shows how little you understand about the history). This is not the justification or evidence used today.

Just one of your many Fables... More claims without evidence

This is on record on your youtube channel. You explicitly rejected evidence on the basis that it contradicts your presuppositions.

I am rubbery you are obviously gluey

Everyone can see you are only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. This is demonstrable on this page.

Proven by the fact that I have offered thousands of dollars to be honestly debunked.

Just like Gene Ray offered thousands of dollars to debunk his "Time Cube" theory. When you are judge, jury, and executioner, your words hold as much weight as the words of Uri Geller. Selbram (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

To win and decisively end this discussion all you have to do is show a single physical real experiment that shows it taking nine times the fuel to spin a motor three times as fast. Or an example where something spinning three times as fast does nine times the work.

Instead you post this junk

Any textbook on thermodynamics or undergraduate physics lab will do.

The internet is a vast place you should be able to find a link to the experiment actually performed.

This is an overt strawman (which shows how little you understand about the history). This is not the justification or evidence used today.

It's a historical fact that the clay experiments convinced a lot of people and they were pseudoscience. Simple fact is you have no modern experimental evidence. You still haven't proven 4 lb dropped one foot is the same energy as 1 lb drop 4 ft

This is on record on your youtube channel. You explicitly rejected evidence on the basis that it contradicts your presuppositions.

More false statements by you backed up with no evidence

Everyone can see you are only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. This is demonstrable on this page.

I am always open to a lie detector contest. I will pay The Upfront costs but if you lose you reimburse me.

Just like Gene Ray offered thousands of dollars to debunk his "Time Cube" theory.

My place no conditions on the payment beyond the requirement to play the 5-minute on their Channel.

When you are judge, jury, and executioner,

You really do have a problem making an honest argument

your words hold as much weight as the words of Uri Geller.

Uri Geller would have probably liked professor lewins clay covered air Track experiment... What a wonderful sham. Draft Physics (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A simple spring disproves your entire years of effort. You agree that a spring compressed to a certain length means it has a certain amount of stored energy, right? Then place various masses to see what what speeds they are launched at.

Again it is verified in many physics labs that the harmonic oscillator frequency is proportional to sqrt(k/m). So it is simple: when you double, triple , quadruple, etc. the mass, the frequency will be 1/sqrt(2), 1/sqrt(3), 1/2, etc.

This means the launched velocities will be 1/sqrt(2), 1/sqrt(3), 1/2, etc. showing that for the same amount of energy, we have v ∝ 1/sqrt(m), or equivalently v^2 ∝ 1/m. Hence E ∝ mv^2.

Moreover, all of phenomenological thermodynamics is established using the notion of work and statistical mechanics known since and developed by Boltzmann is derived explicitly using the kinetic energy formula. You have to debunk those established field first and then publish your findings in a journal.

My place no conditions on the payment beyond the requirement to play the 5-minute on their Channel.

I've looked at your page and content. This is directly false. You qualify your statement that they need to have a certain number of subscribers, making this all a sham and a grab for attention.

I am always open to a lie detector contest. I will pay The Upfront costs but if you lose you reimburse me.

Lie detectors are known pseudoscience. They are inadmissible in court for most states, so I don't know what your point here is. Again, more needless grandstanding.

You really do have a problem making an honest argument

I've made several arguments already, including a debunk of your paint spray analogy (where in order to defend it you changed your analogy completely) or my quotation of Galileo showing he did think d ∝ t^2 when it comes to idealized free-fall acceleration. You are lying that I haven't.

Uri Geller would have probably liked professor lewins clay covered air Track experiment... What a wonderful sham.

See this is where you display clear dishonesty. It was already demonstrated that the clay must weight about 230 grams in order for your frivolous accusation to work, which means it would have to be... 100 cubic cm (about 4.5 by 4.5 by 4.5 cm) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=230+grams+%2F+%28density+of+clay%29 This was already shown to be ludicrous, as the clay was nowhere near that amount of volume, yet here you are reverting to the same tired arguments that have been debunked. Selbram (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A simple spring disproves your entire years of effort. You agree that a spring compressed to a certain length means it has a certain amount of stored energy, right? Then place various masses to see what what speeds they are launched at.

The brozo did this experiment with a lever, remember, the one Mass traveled twice the velocity of the two Mass... Game over

Again it is verified in many physics labs that the harmonic oscillator frequency is proportional to sqrt(k/m). So it is simple: when you double, triple , quadruple, etc. the mass, the frequency will be 1/sqrt(2), 1/sqrt(3), 1/2, etc.

So when you double the mass of a stick of dynamite you quadruple the work it can do?

This means the launched velocities will be 1/sqrt(2), 1/sqrt(3), 1/2, etc. showing that for the same amount of energy, we have v ∝ 1/sqrt(m), or equivalently v^2 ∝ 1/m. Hence E ∝ mv^2.

Again you have no physical evidence that three times the velocity creates nine times the energy or vice versa. Saying so is not showing so

Moreover, all of phenomenological thermodynamics is established using the notion of work and statistical mechanics known since and developed by Boltzmann is derived explicitly using the kinetic energy formula.

Garbage in garbage out... The argument is about what causes effects not the fact that the effects exists. Circular reasoning is sometimes usable but it's of little use dissecting the truth

You have to debunk those established field first and then publish your findings in a journal.

Strawman nonsense, all I have to show is you have no evidence for your Holy Ghost theory

I've looked at your page and content. This is directly false. You qualify your statement that they need to have a certain number of subscribers, making this all a sham and a grab for attention.

Of what use would playing the video on a channel smaller than mine be? Of course the whole point is to have the argument seen by a broader audience and to have it tested by people smarter than you. If I thought I was wrong why would I solicit more attention... I'm doing what every good scientist should do i'm asking to hear every possible reasonable criticism. All I get from you is ****

Lie detectors are known pseudoscience. They are inadmissible in court for most states, so I don't know what your point here is. Again, more needless grandstanding.

Kind of funny you would call it pseudoscience, I believe most behavioral psychologist believe the technology to be useful. No one's going to jail based on the results i'm just quite certain I have nothing to fear.

I've made several arguments already, including a debunk of your paint spray analogy

Do tell, where can I find that debunk... Please please provide a link

(where in order to defend it you changed your analogy completely)

You won't be posting any evidence of that

or my quotation of Galileo showing he did think d ∝ t^2 when it comes to idealized free-fall acceleration. You are lying that I haven't.

The fact that Galileo knew that the distance will be the square of the time........ Proves my argument that time is the cause of the effect

See this is where you display clear dishonesty. It was already demonstrated that the clay must weight about 230 grams in order for your frivolous accusation to work, which means it would have to be... 100 cubic cm (about 4.5 by 4.5 by 4.5 cm) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=230+grams+%2F+%28density+of+clay%29

And as I repeatedly pointed out the clay wasn't the only defect, it was just the most obvious defect, the lighter cart also had a steel bar attached to it.. later in the same lecture the one Mass cart has no steel bar.

This was already shown to be ludicrous, as the clay was nowhere near that amount of volume, yet here you are reverting to the same tired arguments that have been debunked.

I have pleaded with these people who claim to make a debunk argument, to show the actual carts and explain how the statements regarding their weight can be rationally defended. You continue to refuse to meet your actual burden of proof. Draft Physics (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Also your conditions for a monetary prize keep changing. First you said to be "honestly debunked" (which again means nothing if you are the judge; there is no reason to think you are unbiased). Now you say merely playing a 5-minute clip of your videos is enough.

Why can't you keep your own story straight? Who can possibly trust you with anything if conditions for your own "prize" you set up keep changing from post to post.

You claim others are duplicitous. I show you are duplicitous by simply letting you reply. By all means, continue to do what you are doing. Selbram (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is a basic freshman physics lab demonstrating exactly what I claimed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpdOWPBy5AU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TBTReCxiMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhSnfTQHP4 You can see that the relationship freq ∝ 1/sqrt(m) or equivalently period ∝ sqrt(m) is verified.

Now I will wait and see what your response is, because it will determine and show pretty decisively what your nature on this site is really all about. Selbram (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Once you publish something you will be able to cite it on Wikipedia DrPhysics999 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

What peer reviewed Journal of unevidence nonsense would you suggest? Draft Physics (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You will have to cite a paper or first hand source that shows Galileo said one unit of distance for one unit of time. DrPhysics999 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

More useless trolling I never suggested he said anything of the kind Draft Physics (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know how you can call me the troll when you’re the one getting blocked. I would suggest looking into Mudfossil University and when he had his little Wikipedia temper tantrum 4 years ago. Soon you will be regulated to sending random emails to folks at Fermilab. DrPhysics999 (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know how you can call me the troll when you’re the one getting blocked.

Getting blocked for winning the argument.

A fact so easily demonstrated by evidence it should have a page on Wikipedia

I would suggest looking into Mudfossil University

You are the one defending the theories of an aggressive religious kook.

and when he had his little Wikipedia temper tantrum 4 years ago.

It was 8 years ago and again I did nothing unreasonable but defend facts

Soon you will be regulated to sending random emails to folks at Fermilab.

I actually had a comment exchange with Dr Lincoln and he was typically evasive regarding providing evidence. Draft Physics (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What peer reviewed Journal of unevidence nonsense would you suggest?

Good point. That is the only kind of journal your groundbreaking findings would have a chance to be published. Please find one and you might have a chance to accept you. Selbram (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that difficult to question... What Journal do you think is a reliable Authority? What Journal deserves to have everything it publishes propagandized on Wikipedia? Draft Physics (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Draft Physics.

please look at the etiquette page before making more comments.

Thank you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette UndarkHorse (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like you to quote where I made a first cause breach of etiquette. Draft Physics (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Draft Physics (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I attempted no edits to the encyclopedia I merely solicited discussion on talk pages regarding the accuracy of the science being described in your encyclopedia. I spammed nothing I harassed no one I merely attempted to defend my claim that some statements need editing. Apparently whatever crime I committed it happened on VQuakr talk page. Seems to me you just censor people who disagree with your editors, especially if they happen to be winning the argument. Draft Physics (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, you haven't made a single edit to an article- you seem to just be here to promote your personal theories/original research and argue with other editors about them. There are places to promote your theories- this isn't one of them. Once you have gone out in the world, promoted them, and published them in a peer reviewed journal or get others to write about them, then we can talk- but until then, you absolutely meet the defintion of an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ScottishFinnishRadish provided the reason for the block above (WP:NOTHERE), and it was not directly related to anything on my user talk page. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

to 331dot

Yes, you haven't made a single edit to an article-

The priority of user moderation is to prevent damage to the articles... As stated I showed no attempt to do anything but "discuss" changes.

you seem

You just lost the argument... People with integrity don't play "seems like" games

to just be here to promote your personal theories/original research and argue with other editors about them.

No, I argued none of my personal Theory, I argued against the personal theories of your editors, and through the conversation it was proven they can provide zero evidence for what they claim to be absolutely proven... The science on Wikipedia is nothing but religion

There are places to promote your theories- this isn't one of them.

Clearly it's a place to promote your theories and no one else's. It's encyclopedia we say so ... or encyclopedia disgraceful cowards

Once you have gone out in the world, promoted them

In science disagreements should be welcome and thoroughly vetted... Running away from the facts is not science

, and published them in a peer reviewed journal

Ironically Wikipedia is in fact a peer reviewed Journal... You're just showing if the peers have no accountability the peer review is of no value.

or get others to write about them,

Like asking the Catholic Church to write about evolution. You fascists are funny

then we can talk-

No worries i'll do plenty of talking till then.

but until then, you absolutely meet the defintion of an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Just one of the many accusations you can't back up with facts

I am declining your request.

And I'm laughing at your duplicity... Ironically editors like you will rot the foundation of the encyclopedia. You're the one not here to build an encyclopedia that has integrity. Draft Physics (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)