Science » Planet Earth
Author`s name Dmitry Sudakov

Energy misdefined in physics

By Gary Novak

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 nonsquared, 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: http://nov79.com/en/ener.html

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.

Gary Novak

Topical Analytics