[Bored chemist]

The top of a pendulum doesn't have to move distance in the same time frame as the bottom of the pendulum?

You seem not to understand that the pendulum bends.

[Bored chemist]

This is a fairly short 5-minute video in which I present "the lever argument" to show that the kinetic Energy Theory creates a free energy paradox.

Five minutes of stating that "science is wrong" without any evidence that science is wrong, or evidence that you are right.
You just don't understand that momentum and energy are different things.
Until you learn that you are jut babbling.

[Kryptid]

Momentum is mass times velocity.

Yes, that tells you its magnitude, but that doesn't tell you its direction.

I can't possibly understand the word game you are playing here.

So you didn't know that momentum was a vector quantity (in that it has both magnitude and direction)? It's necessary to take the direction into account when talking about conservation of momentum. Failure to do that can lead to ideas like reactionless drives (which violate physics).

Why don't you just prohibit thought experiments as an argument tool... Clearly the thought experiment isn't about broken leavers.

My illustration with the broken lever was to help you understand that the other train doesn't have to move at all in order for momentum to be conserved. If we know that momentum is conserved despite the second train not moving, then we know it will also be conserved even if the second train moves at less than twice the speed of the first train.

You should give out awards for the greatest evasion of a point made.

I didn't evade your point. I showed why it was a faulty assumption.

I wasn't using conservation of momentum as a proof of what happens.

You were when you said this:

The fact that a 10-ton train dropped on one side of a lever can produce a 5-ton train going 2x as fast on the other side should not be a possible dispute as the momentum is conserved.

You were saying that conservation of momentum should mean that the second train being double the speed of the first train is without "possible dispute". Then I showed why that was a bad assumption using a faulty lever as an example.

I'm arguing that it is the factual consequence  of the experiment accepting your theory of kinetic energy

Not when you misapply conservation of momentum (which you did do).

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

Why would it be helpful to muddle up units like that?

I care not as the units are redundant. But until it is accepted that weight/pressure is a unit of heat then there's little hope of creating a universal energy unit. I think "momentum's" should be understood as a quantity of energy... A number of energy units.

You seem not to understand that the pendulum bends.

I'll agree I don't understand what you're talking about and how it's relevant to the basic function of a lever.

Five minutes of stating that "science is wrong" without any evidence that science is wrong, or evidence that you are right.

If you're claiming there was something unfactual in the description of how the lever works could you quote that error.

Your physics has had hundreds of years and millions of experimental hours to perform these experiments... I think it's silly to blame me for not personally doing them.

You just don't understand that momentum and energy are different things.

I don't think Jesus Is God either.

Until you learn that you are jut babbling.

I don't think much of what you type either

[Kryptid]

I think "momentum's" should be understood as a quantity of energy

And... that's strike three. Now is the time to lock your thread.

Don't complain about it. You were warned more than once.

[Kryptid]

Hey guys, look! We're YouTube famous! (profanity warning)

He mentioned us on his website, too: http://www.efilism.com/ds/dp87.html