It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Energy Misdefined in Physics

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Found this article by Gary Novak,
I thought it was interesting .... though my physics is a bit rusty .... seems like he is onto something based on rocket science only as his proof. This is not new info but wanted to run it by the scientific community at ATS.

So enjoy:

Physicists designed a definition of energy which erased some difficult questions which they could not answer. Kinetic energy is being defined as mass times velocity squared. But in fact, it is mass times velocity non-squared, which is called momentum. Momentum is kinetic energy. Velocity squared does not represent nature, because nothing moves at velocity squared.

Here's the problem: If a small rocket engine adds a one kilogram force for one second to a spacecraft moving at 25,000 kilometers per hour, a lot of energy is added; but if the same rocket engine adds a one kilogram force for one second to a roller-skate, a lot less energy is added. Same transformation; different energy. With the corrected definition of energy, the same amount of energy is added in both cases.

The definition of energy was argued for 200 years but the wrong alternative was chosen. Now, rocket math can be applied to the original test, and it shows the error. The value of a rocket is that there are no complexities to mask the result.

This model, involving falling objects, was the original basis for the definition of kinetic energy.

Rockets are used to calculate force, which is independent of the definition of energy.

Part 1: Kinetic energy is not ½mv².

A 4kg object dropped 1m (meter) has the same amount of ½mv² as a 1kg object dropped 4m, because force times distance equals ½mv² for an accelerating mass. But a rocket accelerating the masses to those velocities requires twice as much energy as fuel for the large mass as for the small one.

Rocket burn time:
large mass: 1.77177876722800 seconds
small mass: 0.88588938361400 seconds

Therefore, both masses do not have the same energy; the rocket does not transform energy in proportion to ½mv²; ½mv² is not kinetic energy; and a gallon of fuel does not produce a consistent amount of ½mv².

Part 2: Kinetic energy is mv.

A 4kg object dropped for 1s (second) has the same amount of mv (momentum) as a 1kg object dropped for 4s, because force times time equals mv for an accelerating mass. A rocket accelerating the masses to those velocities uses the same amount of energy as fuel for both masses.

Rocket burn time:
large mass: 3.92400000000000 seconds
small mass: 3.92400000000000 seconds

Therefore, both masses have the same amount of energy; the rocket transforms energy in proportion to mv; mv is kinetic energy; and a gallon of fuel produces a consistent amount of mv.

The math is shown here: nov79.com...

What this proof shows is that the erroneous definition of energy separates energy addition from the transformation. Energy addition becomes a mathematical abstraction which changes with reference points and does not maintain a consistent relationship to the transformation which is supposed to be the source of the energy.

The corrected definition of energy maintains a consistent relationship to the transformation, because the transformation produces a consistent and definable amount of force times time. The transformation does not produce a consistent amount of force times distance.

The result of this mathematical proof is totally predictable, because force times time (Ft) does not equal ½mv² for an accelerating mass, and Ft is the only product of a rocket. The rocket produces a constant force, which means unchanging through time, while it has no relation to distance. When a rocket produces a definable amount of force times time, in proportion to fuel use, but does not produce a definable amount of force time distance, which has no relation to fuel use, this shows that energy is transformed in proportion to force times time, not force times distance.

Physicists have been saying that the rocket equations balance, so there is no problem with the definition of energy. I proved that the definition of energy is incorrect-that means incorrect despite physicists balancing a nonsensical equation.

About ninety percent of physics is based on the faulty premise that if equations balance, it's a law of the universe. String theory is where this standard was highly visible. For several years, physicists discussed equations for string theory; and eventually, they said they had the perfect equations which balance; and therefore, string theory is a law of the universe.

They can no longer claim that balancing equations creates a law of the universe, because the misdefinition of energy shows otherwise. It's possible to balance nonsensical equations. So physicists can throw out about ninety percent of physics which has no other basis that the supposed balancing of equations. There has to be more objective evidence than balancing equations to represent laws of the universe.




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v2

Ever increase in speed is *2 K will be *4
And for a V of 4, KE will than factor to 9
So on and so forth

It's a proven science that also can be extended to display quantities.


But a rocket accelerating the masses to those velocities requires twice as much energy as fuel for the large mass as for the small one.


It would, this displays the quantitative relevance in the equation. This shows the essence of v2, which is twofold.


edit on 2/2/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   

unb3k44n7
Kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v2

Ever increase in speed is *2 K will be *4
And for a V of 4, KE will than factor to 9
So on and so forth

It's a proven science that also can be extended to display quantities.
edit on 2/2/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)


I hear you...that is what I learned as well but the author is saying we don't need velocity squared as this doesn't happen in nature and that kinetic energy is simply momentum.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   


When a rocket produces a definable amount of force times time, in proportion to fuel use, but does not produce a definable amount of force time distance, which has no relation to fuel use, this shows that energy is transformed in proportion to force times time, not force times distance.
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


Momentum is conserved. This statement here directly contradicts the person who is claiming otherwise.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 




but the author is saying we don't need velocity squared as this doesn't happen in nature

What doesn't happen in nature?
Did you consider that the author could be wrong? Like, really wrong?

Momentum and kinetic energy are two different things and are expressed in different units. Energy performs work. Momentum does not. Energy can accelerate mass. Momentum cannot.


edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 




but the author is saying we don't need velocity squared as this doesn't happen in nature

What doesn't happen in nature?
Did you consider that the author could be wrong? Like, really wrong?

Momentum and kinetic energy are two different things and are expressed in different units. Energy performs work. Momentum does not. Energy can accelerate mass. Momentum cannot.
edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Yes....I did think he could be wrong....very wrong....which is why I brought it here. This is obviously not what I learned in college many many moons ago but thought it was interesting and wanted to get peoples opinions.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

UxoriousMagnus
I hear you...that is what I learned as well but the author is saying we don't need velocity squared as this doesn't happen in nature and that kinetic energy is simply momentum.
You don't have to take anyone's word....you can test this if you have a car.

Find a place you can brake hard without getting rear-ended, then measure your braking distance from 30mph and from 60mph (for example). If the V² is not really what happens in nature, then the braking distance should double when the speed is doubled. If the V² is what really happens in nature, then the braking distance should quadruple when the speed is doubled (approximately, as there are other variables in this experiment).

I have actually done this experiment myself.

Now when we get into particle physics, we can't all have our own LHC so we're pretty much at the mercy of what the LHC research teams tell us in that field.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Phage

Momentum and kinetic energy are two different things and are expressed in different units. Energy performs work. Momentum does not. Energy can accelerate mass. Momentum cannot.


edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Well, technically, neither one: physical interactions perform work and accelerate mass, energy and momentum are properties of which govern the requirements of physically true interactions and simplify computations of the correct result.

But yes, Isaac Newton forcefully smashed the previously incorrect confusion between these (in different names) existing historically.
edit on 2-2-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

Sorry, I can't really follow what you said but the point is, energy is expressed in units of work. You cannot do energy calculations without work being involved.

Momentum is not energy.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The definition of energy seems to define the properties of energy, not actually what it is or where it's structure originates from. Some scientists are aware of this but I think it would be hard to find this information with the limited technology we have at this time.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by mbkennel
 

Sorry, I can't really follow what you said but the point is, energy is expressed in units of work. You cannot do energy calculations without work being involved.

Momentum is not energy.


Momentum is kinetic energy. Earlier you said momentum can not accelerate a mass, I dont see how that statement can be true; Imagine rolling a bowling ball (giving it momentum) towards a still bowling ball, when they collide will the bowling ball with momentum not have accelerated a mass? Or your point is that the momentum ceases upon contact so it was not momentum that accelerates the mass, but the kinetic energy?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is the reason for the squaring the relevance of 2 planes, horizontal and vertical? Basically the existence of gravity (up and down) and would it be friction or the energy needed to accelerate in general straight way? Would the author then have hopes of being correct when considering a rocket not under the influence of a nearby massive gravitating body?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is the reason for the squaring the relevance of 2 planes, horizontal and vertical? Basically the existence of gravity (up and down) and would it be friction or the energy needed to accelerate in general straight way? Would the author then have hopes of being correct when considering a rocket not under the influence of a nearby massive gravitating body?


It is squaring essentially because that is the function which best represents what was observed.

LoL sometimes formulas are built around observation sometimes experiments are design around interesting ways in which the math can be manipulated.

Also work is simply force applied over a distance.

Energy, honestly . . . is just a useful tool to describe the state of a system in relation to another system or itself at another time.

This is why most physicist start arguing about "information" in regards to the most advanced/complicated applications of physics.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

ImaFungi

Phage
reply to post by mbkennel
 

Sorry, I can't really follow what you said but the point is, energy is expressed in units of work. You cannot do energy calculations without work being involved.

Momentum is not energy.


Momentum is kinetic energy. Earlier you said momentum can not accelerate a mass, I dont see how that statement can be true; Imagine rolling a bowling ball (giving it momentum) towards a still bowling ball, when they collide will the bowling ball with momentum not have accelerated a mass? Or your point is that the momentum ceases upon contact so it was not momentum that accelerates the mass, but the kinetic energy?


No the Potential Energy is converted into Kinetic Energy.
The force of gravity would be accelerating the mass.

-FBB
edit on 2-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


Okay that was a poor explanation.

You are describing a collision in which momentum is conserved, one must then switch to a center of mass reference in which there is no acceleration unless work is being done on the system.

I hope that works a bit better.
Individual particles may show acceleration but that is not how the system in measured.
Otherwise work would be done on the system.

-FBB
edit on 2-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 202



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is the reason for the squaring the relevance of 2 planes, horizontal and vertical? Basically the existence of gravity (up and down) and would it be friction or the energy needed to accelerate in general straight way? Would the author then have hopes of being correct when considering a rocket not under the influence of a nearby massive gravitating body?


exactly....and the author stated this in the article:

The result of this mathematical proof is totally predictable, because force times time (Ft) does not equal ½mv² for an accelerating mass, and Ft is the only product of a rocket. The rocket produces a constant force, which means unchanging through time, while it has no relation to distance.

but I think he means within the gravitational pull of....say Earth.
edit on 3-2-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is the reason for the squaring the relevance of 2 planes, horizontal and vertical? Basically the existence of gravity (up and down)



FriedBabelBroccoli
It is squaring essentially because that is the function which best represents what was observed.
I agree with FBB's answer, and as I said I did my own observations, so I have independent verification. The two planes doesn't make sense. Maybe this math will help a little, that kinetic energy the product of velocity times momentum, divided by two. Since velocity is also a component of momentum, that's why velocity is squared.


UxoriousMagnus
exactly....and the author stated this in the article:

The result of this mathematical proof is totally predictable, because force times time (Ft) does not equal ½mv² for an accelerating mass, and Ft is the only product of a rocket. The rocket produces a constant force, which means unchanging through time, while it has no relation to distance.


Here is an interesting and heated debate he engaged in with someone (which calls him Dr Novak but he says he only has a masters degree so I don't know why it says "Dr. Novak":

www.principia-scientific.org...
edit on 3-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In open space free from any gravitationally attracting bodies, a rocket will not be under the same conditions as say your car braking example. I was wondering if the reason for the squaring of the term in the equation has to do with the force of gravity aiding in momentum upon acceleration. Or if we imagine a car (rocket) in space without the influence of gravity, your 30 mph and 60 mph acceleration and braking experiment would be equal in magnitude to on earth (in terms of the necessity of squaring)?



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In open space free from any gravitationally attracting bodies, a rocket will not be under the same conditions as say your car braking example. I was wondering if the reason for the squaring of the term in the equation has to do with the force of gravity aiding in momentum upon acceleration. Or if we imagine a car (rocket) in space without the influence of gravity, your 30 mph and 60 mph acceleration and braking experiment would be equal in magnitude to on earth (in terms of the necessity of squaring)?


Okay I think I understand what you are working towards.


The 1/2 and ^2 of the formula is a result of integrating ( www.mathtutor.ac.uk... ) the momentum ( mass x velocity /w mass as a constant ) which gives the area under that curve which allows you to compare the energy (work) to the quantity of motion ( momentum ).

m=k :kvdv= (k)(1/2)(v^2) = 1/2mv^2 (evaluate between the bounds)

You are comparing the area under different curves as opposed to their rates of change. The total area must remain constant due to the conservation of energy and your result is the state of the system after some change in time or displacement.

The reduction in speed is the result of applying a force in the opposite direction. Gravity has nothing to do with it. The acceleration of gravity is used to calculate the friction coefficient from the normal force.

-FBB
edit on 3-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Ok, I think I understand that, even in Arbitraguers example of car braking that it is not a 1:2 ratio in that from 30 mph to 60 mph, so because of this its said the proper event and activity of nature is that the velocity is squared in regards to mass and momentum and the resistance needed to then stop that kinetic energy and momentum.

I am then wondering what about nature causes things to be this way, (you may think its silly, stupid or unanswerable but im at least asking you to try to think about it), in those equations where v is squared (the OP's arguer doesnt think so), what physical manifestation of the universe would have to be different then the current one ( in which v is squared) in order for v to not be squared?

Do you get what im curious about? Something about the nature of mass, momentum, distance over time, has the need for v to be squared, what about the nature of these things causes this need for squaring the value? What about nature would have to be changed for the value to not be squared? Why isnt it that as 60 is double 30 it requires double the energy to stop 60 then 30? But now I finally think I see why it may be, does it have to do with the exponential of sorts nature of accelerating a rest mass, the energy expended to constantly accelerate a mass is 1 part energy to jump an increment up, 1 part energy to remain at that new increment, and 1 part energy to jump up another increment? And so the difference in that activity is not even from 0 to 30, as it is from 0 to 30 to 60?



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

ImaFungi
what physical manifestation of the universe would have to be different then the current one ( in which v is squared) in order for v to not be squared?
We already have a universe with momentum, where the velocity is not squared.

So you are asking what about Nature makes us use v squared, referring to energy.

This doesn't seem to be a question about nature so much as why man has defined more than one term to describe the nature of bodies in motion: energy and momentum. So this question can be rephrased as "why are these two different terms not the same" (because for example in order to be the same they might both use V instead of V squared).

They are not the same because they are different things, just as an energy and mass are different things as I tried to explain in the other thread. Yes you can convert mass to energy as described by E=mc² so there is an equivalence, but mass is not energy. I see the answer as, different words have different meanings, and in physics, usually very specific definitions.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join