12-30-25: kind of a short live video using an oscillating spring as another example of momentum conservation. Demonstrating that Springs store momentum and release momentum. I then made some comparisons to levers used as balances demonstrating the implausibility of "balancing" uneven amounts of kinetic energy.
12-28-25: A live video response to a math and science video regarding whether Adams have color. Unfortunately most of the video is just him saying everything is waving and me responding by pointing out they haven't proven that.
12-28-25: Live video responding to a video by Icansciencethat in which he claims to examine the "lever paradox" ... All he does is reassert the same old religious claim that some kind of living force is conserved when energy is applied to levers. He's clearly asserting that the 2000 year old law of the lever is flawed science and that momentum isn't conserved. These are both bold and Incredibly stupid claims and he demonstrates them with no physical experimental evidence.
12-25-25: Another live video ... I start by discussing some experiments demonstrating twice the force twice the velocity... Then I talk a little bit about a contest run by Curt Jaimungal that won't do science any good.. Then I play a video on gravity where Claudia de Rham pretends to say something interesting.
12-23-25: Another live video titled "the real science of physics". Video explains the Simplicity of push and collision as Elemental functions... Then talks about charges creating dipoles which create nucleuses which ultimately creates atoms held together by magnetic style relationships. It is pointed out that the Bohr model is two unstable to produce atomic cohesion.
12-23-25: Another live video with not much viewer participation. I just go over the basics again.. first gravity being a force collected in units of time.. And explain how that force is converted into variable friction... Which in turn produces experiments that prove there is no energy beyond momentum.
12-19-25: A response video to a couple of comments... First some crap about springs in series being able to multiply weight... Then some talk about "motion Theory" and how it doesn't really add any value whatsoever to the physics knowledge base.... Then I talk some about gravity being a Time dependent Force and the thin ice proof.. then a little bit about the AI identity theft... Then back to the spring argument with some bonus buffoonery by the long brain dead pyrrho314
12-19-25: A response video to a veritasium video that is outrageously dishonest in how it describes the historical progress of theory and experimentation. He uses analogies to actual experiments to project the false notion that the claims they make cover all levels of physics. The video is just lies and perversion and should offend anyone who has any respect for science.
12-19-25: Another video regarding Springs... The first part just arguing that Springs can't multiply anything's weight... The next bit is some talk about how Springs absorb energy that doesn't go where it would have gone... The last bit just restating how springs don't give back energy equally... Pushing lite things is less efficient than pushing heavy things.
12-19-25: Kind of an overview video, starting by emphasizing the point that there is but one universe the one where electrons and protons are moved by force. I explain how the photon Force is everywhere in the universe and is making it the same time everywhere in the universe. I move on to how the photon Force creates gravity and then explain the fundamental function of charge.
12-18-25: A response video to motion Theory... Not much hard physics to argue as the theory doesn't really make any new direct measurable statements about reality. I attempt to bend the conversation to subjects like the kinetic energy theorem and the fact that gravity is a time-dependent force.
12-16-25: Another live video where I talk some about hooke's law and the law of the lever... Then move on to some weird AI videos.
12-13-25: Unlisted response video to Valerie regarding one of her straw man assertions. Disagreeing with the work energy theorem and the leibnizian silliness of squaring the velocity, does not mean you can't sensibly understand the relationship between force and motion. Newtons statement that twice the force creates twice the velocity and three times the force creates three times the velocity does not mean you think big sailboats have the same energy as little sailboats. Nor does it prevent you from understanding that you get units of force in units of time.
12-9-25: Another live video where I first deal with some irrelevant comments made by Valerie and then move on to a profoundly ignorant response video claiming how much a rubber band actually stretches doesn't make any difference to how much energy it can produce. Then I do some talk about gravity
12-9-25: Another live video where I once again explain how some experiments done with rubber bands create deceptive results. I challenge the producers of such videos to own up to their mistakes and correct the deception they're perpetrating. Then I play a math and science video that was supposed to have something to do with the creation of atomic nucleuses... Turned out to just be mush.
12-9-25: Another response video to the despicably dishonest physics professor Valerie of Xavier University. In his video he very ineffectively attempts to put words in Newton's mouth showing complete disrespect for one of the greatest scientists ever. Then attempts to defend the obvious garbage experiment he did. I point out the obvious lying subterfuge and also remark that his insanely poor Behavior adds credibility to my argument that the science of physics is uncredible and anti-credible.
12-8-25: A live video where I explain the simple model of the function of electrons and protons. I call it 2 + 2 + 3 physics. The model very simply and completely duplicates what would be expected from charged objects described by Maxwell. The simple model provides a foundation for the creation of dipoles and eventually magnetism, and eliminates entirely any need to contrive a "strong force" to hold nucleuses together. It really is the best work I've done, and it is a sad commentary on science, that it receives so little Fair consideration.
12-6-25: Another live video with very low participation. I start by talking a bit about levers and how they function... Move on to Springs and scales and all the simple experiments that physics doesn't do. Then finish up again talking about how all constant forces are time dependent forces. Certainly Newton knew that and modern science is feigning ignorance.
12-6-25: Another live video not intended to be too serious... Where I first talked about some liabilities of using rubber bands in experiments... Then blue moonshine ends up in the chat and continues to prove he's nothing but a liar and a cheat. I then move on to an old physics girl video where the physics being taught to kids is logically impossible.
12-5-25: I did a live video replaying my response video to the lying cheat Valerie Rousseau... Emphasizing that he is saying Newton had a wrong understanding of the second law. And pointing out that there were measurement anomalies in his fake experiment.
12-4-25: Another response video to the lying scum physics professor Valerie Rousseau employed by Xavier University. First he lies about what Isaac Newton directly stated and then he fakes an experiment to prove Newton wrong. His video mocks Isaac Newton, mocks the law of the lever, and mocks Hook's law, as junk science. He's claiming that you need 9 lb of force to move 1 lb three times as fast. Clearly he's just mocking science, in defense of religion.
12-4-25: A response video of sorts to a dissident science video where Bob and David de Hilster are talking about a particle model of photons. I point out that the model is a bit underdeveloped and such.
12-4-25: A unlisted response video to a Michael Foolwell video where he just wastes time proclaiming everything's been adequately proven.
12-4-25: Added a video to the "how much do I have to pay a physicist" series. Another video about Springs and how it must be understood that the spring actually absorbs Force... And that the absorption means the mass supporting the spring doesn't receive the full impact of the impacting Force.
12/2/25: In this video I point out that it is as foolish to think speed is energy as it is to think pointing an arrow makes it have more energy. I defend the argument that momentum is the only "energy" of motion that is transferred and conserved. I use the ballistic pendulum to again prove that the idea that energy increases quadratically with velocity is unfounded/undemonstrated in any physical experiment. I also point out that constant forces, are always time dependent forces, and the quantity that will decide how much force is collected is time in the force.
I have been producing a series of shorter videos titled "how much do I have to pay a physicist" in which I make the simple arguments that demonstrate conventional physics to be unevidenced and illogical. Over the years I have offered numerous YouTube channels up to $5,000 to produce a video debunking the simple arguments made in these videos. To date no YouTube physicist has been willing to quote me a reasonable price to debunk my arguments. YouTube playlist
Around the 20th of October 2025 I did a response video to video produced by an Xavier University of Louisiana physics professor Valerie Rousseau. He took the physics arguments as a personal attack and decided to escalate the disagreement to include doxing, defacement of artwork, and slandering false accusations of criminal activity. He backs up none of his physics arguments with any credible physical evidence and has so far just wasted everyone's time. Here's a link to a playlist of my video responses.
Around the 20th of October 2025 I did a response video to video produced by a physicist/teacher producing videos under the channel name "I can science that". He has a falsetto personality like Mr Rogers and the physics is just childish cartoons and puppets. He pontificates the religious statement that it does in fact take 25 times the spring compression to move something five times as fast... He produces no physical evidence and just spews girly man bullshit. Here's a link to a playlist of my video responses.
Feb 1, 2025: I have been involved in a protracted email discussion with a science teacher named Paul Nord. Unfortunately, he keeps evading the core disagreement and the requirement to have experimental evidence to prove cases. Hopefully the current word salad will become something better to chew on... But for what it's worth here's the link
An itemized list of errors in popular physics theory
On the migration of energy through its observed forms.
I begin by proposing that energy or Force is an elemental substance made of discrete quanta of momentum. In other words, energy exists elementally as bits of stuff moving the speed of force/ light. This description of energy is quite consistent with Einstein's description of a specific form of energy--the photon. I merely alter the description to include other and some less detectable arrangements of energy quanta.
Put simply, energy quanta can exist in two states: freely flying in a straight line vector at the speed of light/force, or as a bit of energy attached to an electron or proton-- where it shares its momentum with the matter bit. In the case where it is attached to a matter bit, the net velocity of the combined object will be less than the speed of light by some percentage dependent on how much energy quanta has been captured.
In its unattached, freely flying form, bits of energy quanta arriving at a surface with a specific frequency might be perceived as a photon. Restated, a photon is just a pattern in the time spacing of energy quanta hitting a material molecular surface. Similarly, magnetism is just a pattern that contains a polarized signature that can be interpreted/perceived by appropriately polarized materials. Of course the quanta can also exist in a more chaotic default state where the bits carry no pattern. I would propose that this default state is the invisible energy that fuels gravity.
When attached to an electron or a proton, the energy quanta gives the electron or proton momentum. If the electron or proton is part of an atom, that momentum makes a contribution to the net momentum of the atom. Motion in any large material object must first originate in electrons and protons--capturing momentum consistent with the large objects' motion. In simple truth, the only elementally active or real universe is the one where electrons and protons are pushed by discrete bits of energy quanta. What physics describes as different forms of energy such as heat, thrust, or large object motion, actually have the identical cause of pushed subatomic particles.
Summarizing this description relevant to thermodynamics. The second law proposes that energy, or more specifically momentum, fades into forms no longer capable of being cycled through the two states of energy (pushing a matter bit or not pushing a matter bit). I would counter argue that a now freely flying bit of force cannot escape the destiny of one day colliding with a bit of matter. And similarly, every bit of energy currently pushing an electron or proton will someday be freed. The Universe has no usefulness bias, it creates and contains no "waste" momentum.
A little difference that makes all the difference... Charge
What has been previously described is a simple push universe. Active bits of energy give motion to intrinsically inactive bits of matter. Adding a small bit of nuance to that mechanism will provide the grounding for all the more complex functions observed in the universe.
It is well established that electrons and protons have an opposite character. They have some feature that enables them to see each other differently and to be "forced" to react differently. Their behavior can be perfectly modeled adding the same feature to the bits of force. By Imagining the force to similarly have two forms, electron active Force and proton active Force interactions between force and matter can be made slightly different but significantly more complex.
With two kinds of force and two kinds of matter a third interaction can be added to the two regular possibilities of absorption and reflection. The simple third interaction would be a conversion of force type ie. if an electron Force bit hits a proton it is converted into a proton bit upon exiting and vice versa. This third interaction gives electrons and protons their function of charge. Perfectly consistent with maxwell's drawings of charge, the electron will only radiate electron Force, and the proton will only radiate proton Force. Being that proton force is inert to electrons and electron forces is inert to protons no pushing pressure will be created between electrons and protons. In the contrary circumstance where two matter bits of the same type interact both will be radiating a strong pushing force tending to drive them in opposites directions.
Simple outline of the possible interactions:
Absorption: When a force bit hits a matter bit of the same type, if the matter bit has no velocity or has some portion of its velocity in the same direction that the force bit is moving, the force bit sticks and adds its momentum to the matter bit.
Reflection: If a force bit hits a matter bit of the same type and the matter bit has some element of velocity in the opposing direction the force bit is reflected back on its path and a bit of force previously captured by the matter bit is released in the opposite direction.
Conversion: If a force bit hits a matter bit of the opposite type the force bit merely passes through the matter bit without sharing momentum and the force bit will have its type changed to that of the matter bit.
These three interactions will cause electrons to repel electrons, protons to repel protons, and electrons and protons to attract.
It eats entropy and makes matter hot and fat with complexity ... Gravity
I would first state that gravity is more an effect, than a Cause. Gravity is not itself a substance, it is an event. What is known with certainty is that gravity behaves exactly like light emitted from a spherical body (a Son) the only difference being a difference in Direction-- light diverges obeying the inverse Square law, gravity converges obeying the same law. Light Heats or pushes on things proportional to the exposed surface area, gravity similarly transfers momentum proportional to material weight/mass. The parallels are too obvious and real to be reasonably ignored. The pushing effect of gravity, like the effect of sun Tanning, is being caused by force. Real bits of energy burn skin and real bits of energy push matter toward the center of an earth.
The short story of gravity is understanding it as a simple Force differential ie. more Force pushing you in than Force pushing you out. What creates the differential is the fact that energy has its speed reduced when pushing matter and that energy delayed is in some sense energy lost. In other words, when matter moves it retards the force moving it and that force will be late getting where it would have been-- the "would have been" in this case equalizing the force pushing something into the Earth.
Put still another way: Matter pushing towards the center of the Earth is distracting energy from its would have been role of equalizing the force pressure an object would have experienced if the Earth did not exist.
Primarily unrecognized by physics is the correlation between gravitation and heat. Large objects in space have hot cores. This heat is the byproduct of the constant cumulative pressure being exerted from all directions by mass pushing towards the core. If you were to build an Earth in space by incrementally adding Mass to a meteor sized object-- it's gravity would increase proportional to an increase in internal temperature. An obvious deduction is to see the heat as a measure of how much energy the object retards from balancing the Force in the space surrounding the object.
Put simply the heat represents the amount of energy that isn't radiating out of the object, which in turn causes the energy differential between the force pushing in and the force pushing out.
The atom
A part of the story of physics told badly is the story of how matter transitions/evolves from simple electrons and protons to atoms and molecules. Under-detailed is the the nuance of the atomic nucleus. Atomic nucleus's give elements their character and in large part determine how atoms will interact with each other. Conventional science breaks the accuracy of the narrative by identifying neutrons has something other then it's parts. A neutron is just an electron stuck to a proton. It is the first and smallest dipole. Neutrons are not "neutral" especially in close proximity. An atomic nucleus is not positively charged protons mixed with neutral neutrons. What they are is a 2:1 ratio mixture of protons and electrons. An atomic nucleus only has a net positive charge but still carrys a substantial number of negatively charged electrons. If we could see force/charge and view a nucleus from different points of view you would see places dominated by proton force, but from other locations you could also see electron force dominate.
Moving from the nucleus to the orbiting electrons-- I would propose that electrons don't in fact orbit. The exterior electrons are much like the nuclear bits just "falling" into a location where the forces they experience are balanced ie. Just as much repulsion as attraction. For example, if a place on the surface of the nucleus had the arrangement of a proton with an electron on each side, you can understand that an external electron facing the proton would be strongly attracted, but that strong attraction would be countered by the electrons on either side, that although further away, would be producing a combined repulsive Force balancing against the electron getting too close to the proton. This stalemate essentially traps external electrons in specific locations relative to the nucleus.