neuvophysics.com

 

 

Newton 's bad day.

 

E= something squared or what?

 

 

E=md or E=Fd ? Science says that it's E=Fd. I strongly disagree for a very good reason or two.

 

 

Fundamental consideration

 

In every case the true value of the energy deemed available from an object in constant motion (Ek) is NOT able to be inferred from the impulse event which must have occurred to cause the constant motion in the first place. Such impulse events are in other words accelerative / decelerative events. All such accelerations from the obviously violent to the gentle pushes and gravitational freefall events are less noticeable but decidedly non linear hyperbolic events.

In all such cases, initial energies are being used and lost to the environment. Therefore the curved portions of these events is not permitted to be used to confirm or deny the value of any Ek which must only be derived from an analysis of the linear TV or momentum of any object whatsoever. That includes the first two seconds of gravitational freefall and ditto for the sidewise pushing case.

There is a caveat in that even though it must be considered that -with force being constant- Ek =m.F.t with 't' being brought to terms of one second and then the F.t is equal to the distance travelled in one second; the true evaluation of work done to evince a similar Ek is always derivable in the distance travelled regardless of the time taken but that distance is only being brought to terms for the empirical requirement of the equations.

 

 

REASON 1

 

F=ma and F=m g Note: >< means equal to for the purposes at hand. The heights are at or near earth surface. ---vacuum supposed.

 

THEOREM to disprove E=mgh at W=1kg

 

1/ Fact: m><W=Fg per kg AT ANY HEIGHT!

2/ Fact: 'g' = 9.81m.s.s FROM ANY HEIGHT!

3/ Fact: Fg per kg = g  ---Therefore the equation F=ma --- Fg=1* g --- g=Fg/1 derives 9.81m.s.s and according to the WEP that is the acceleration rate in the Earth's gravitational field for all objects at all proposed heights. This can a only be due to a fact---

4/ Fact: When mass is 1kg then Fg= g regardless of the height!

So both height and acceleration rate are thought to become factors and supposedly E=m gh via E=Fd =mad.

However if m><W= Fg then E=Fg*h actually becomes E=md as proposed above and E=mad and mgh are precluded. Note: m is 1kg and 'd' actually becomes 9.81m. This is because in all cases mass/weight is the total force of gravity via C=F per m/m (C is for constant g. F is in Newtons )

In the same vein E=mv^2 can't be used when v is unity. That makes the equation very suspicious.

Or they consider that if g=F/m and F=9.81 and m=10kg then 'g' would be 0.981m.s.s which is ridiculous, so they decided the need to bring in height. So then if E=mgh we now get E=10*9.81*1 we get E=98.1J. So because that also works for g=E/mh it might appear to be the only reasonable solution. NO! We can just use the height and leave the acc rate out.

The savage argument here is that the acc rate causes an exponential increase in energy (even if it doesn't match up with E=mv^2 lol!)  NO! The SEP sees no difference in the energies derivable in the gravitational inertial case or the sidewise case. They are the same. A force by any other name is just the same. The only difference is at impact because the gravitational force is still acting as the object is splatting!

 

 

REASON 2

 

It is a well understood fact that energy is highly relatable to mass and that includes work done by the motion of any mass. Have you heard of mE equivalence?

When we analyse the derivation of equations we must look at relatable dimensions and not just pull the ideas out of any hat that suits our needs, as we saw above. E.g. we notice from the close relationships in physics that energy and work definitely have dimensions of mass, velocity and distance. On the other hand we should note that force is one step removed from any dimensions of energy. Force gives the acceleration which leads to the velocity and or distance. Therefore force has no dimensions of energy, so we can state the following.

1/ To have Ek, Ep or work you MUST have mass!

2/ When the choice of equation comes down to either--- Ek (W)= F.d with mass implied or--- M.d with force implied then it becomes the equation which defers to the dimensions which must be the true form. Therefore it is E=m.d which is true. Note: A force is implied but the value is irrelevant.

Also with E=Fd when mass is zero there is no Ep. However with the true equation just declared--- E=md--- then we can see that when Force is zero there is still Ep in any system, and not only in a gravitational field.

It is also a fact that even E=mv^2 is really E=md^2 brought to terms of one second. Therefore we again notice the E=md part -because we are disputing the squared functor specifically- any derivation from the ignorantly derived E=Fd into E=m.a.d and its gravitational derivative--- E=m.g.h is specious because the dimensional aspects of the terms and units have not been heeded either.

This E=m.a.d farce is all contrived to declare E=mv^2 However we find that E=m.g.h only ever supports that squared equation when d is 10m and mass is 1kg. Say mass is five and d is 12. E= 5*10*12 = 600 and the answer from E=mv^2 is 5*TV =5*14^2 = 980?? However it is of profound interest that E=m.h and E=m.v GET ALMOST THE SAME RESULT EVERY TIME! The answer to almost has to do with the 9.81 instead of 10 problem.

Have a think of this: A car weighing 2000kg travelling at 30m.s will have an energy of 1.8 mJ by E=mv^2. Even halving that; it remains ridiculous. E=mv gives an energy of only 60kJ. However with E=2mv we get 120kJ which would be more believable to the motor engineers? Most real life cars are in that 30-60kw energy/power range. Note: The difference between energy and power is academic. A J.s is a w.s except that the Joule is always tied to one volt, while the watt is free. So  kw is the same as kJ.

You see; when the energy derived by the electrodynamic joule is passed down the electromechanical chain, it all works well for motors and linear drivers etc. It is only when it  all gets down to Newton 's gravitational and motion laws that energy becomes squared and that doesn't work at all. As I just said; there is also a slight discrepancy between gravitational inertia and space inertia and that is explained on this site.

Having said that -and as I have stated elsewhere- I am (was) tending to ascribe to the Idea that E=2mv and 2md. The reason available is that it can be understood that energy is being injected into the falling object at a constant force over time*. So we can consider the following equation to calculate that. E=m.F.t ---So if t=1sec then d is 4.95m so we either have E=m.F.t/2 is equivalent to E=md and mv ---or we leave E=m.F.t and end up with E=2md and 2mv**. That seems to sit better with the electrodynamic Joule where 1amp and 1volt through 1ohm will move a 1/2kg object through 1m in 1sec. (because the 1amp is a Joule.sec) and the 1amp and 1volt will give 1 watt (instantaneous) and one Joule second will therefore derive one watt second. I must say here that the Joule is not a watt-second nor visa versa. Note: the calcs didn't seem to support moving a whole kg through that distance! E=mv^2 is way too much energy to contemplate here though; even if the values become more than unity of course, lol.

*This is just expanding E=md--- the 'F.t' part just derives the 'd' to be considered in E=md. If you study the fundamental consideration clause at the top, you might be of the understanding that E=md or mv ('d' per second for equations) might be just fine.

**That means E=2m.d in the sidewise case also or the SEP would be violated. Please note that we don't just invent equations to make our maths work. -just like Newton did with E=mgh- We are finding valid equations which fit the facts on the ground.

 

We're all familiar with Newton 's cradle and the feather and the hammer and what they tell us. Even so those experiments show us little about the potential energy of height. With regard to that many have realised the validity of -perhaps the square root of vis viva- (E=mv) but most folks just learn what they are taught at school and then that appears to be supported by proof. However such proofs can be shown to be invalid either by self serving circular argument or by actual mistakes and glaring misconceptions. The idea of any squared equation for energy (even if fudged down by half) comes via a serious and long-lived mistake by Newton et al.

To get at the truth you need to derive the result yourself. Newton likely began with the term unit kgF. 1kgF = 10N (approx) but (because that has been disputed by some) I will utilize the common term of ' Newtons ' for this examination of the facts. Note: Along with the weak equivalence principle (WEP); the strong equivalence principle (SEP) must also be upheld. Simply put. WEP--- every object falls at the same rate. And SEP--- As in the gravity case, so in the sidewise case.

 

Many consider that gravitational force is greater than mechanical inertial force because of height derived potential energy. No!! Here's why not---

If I mimic the gravity situation of opposing forces at rest, and apply a constant force (being physically withheld) against an object in the sidewise case, then (when I start the clock and remove the holding mechanism) the situation will be exactly the same as in the gravitational freefall case, and even the same as though I had just simultaneously clicked the stopwatch and started pushing with the same force to begin the experiment. Therefore: Whether the force is already existing and being withheld, or whether it has an immediate beginning is of no consequence. It is the same as the gravitational freefall case. SEP is upheld. Note: Refer to conclusion below.

Of course I know that TV is computed by v=gt! Now to the gravitational freefall--- We have measured 10 (9.81) Newtons causing a terminal velocity -after a fall of about 0.45 seconds- of about 0.1m.s over a vertical distance of 1 meter. I repeat 0.1m.s 1m: So from E=mv the energy is 0.1J. If you don't like me using that equation in the gravitational inertial case then lets understand the support that E=mv truly gets from--- The work/energy is also able to be derived from E=md** or 0.1*1=0.1 J. So the answer must be concluded as one Joule from 1kg via a force of 10N for one second which will derive or cause 10J. So E=mv is upheld as just proved.

**Please refer to the dispute re Fd or md.

 

 

 

OR THEN THERE'S THIS---

 

SEP says that we can turn that whole deal sidewise and apply a similar mechanical force of 10 Newtons . The results are exactly the same. That result is in exact accordance with the SEP.

The sleight of hand sidewise math goes like this. A force of 10N causes a mass of 10N to move a distance of 10m with a terminal velocity of 10m.s WTH

So they erroneously compute. E=10*10 =100J WTH

To arrive at that conclusion they have deviously turned 1kg of vertical weight into 10N of horizontal mass! They have just translated Force into mass without even blinking! Note: Weight is only conditionally equivalent to Force and mass in the gravitational inertial case --- not at all in the sidewise mechanical inertial case.

If they don't use that sleight of hand (by an inability to comprehend or conceptualize such laws and terms or whatever) then they can easily stoop to this one.

They correctly propose this: If any constant force causes a movement of 1kg through 10 meters it will derive 10 J--- and also

A constant (any) force of 10N on a 1kg mass causes a terminal velocity of 10 m.s over ten meters. Therefore--- in one second. So by E=mv we get 10J.

Both of those are correct but they are just two DIFFERENT ways to derive the same work/energy.

 

But then they go and stupidly multiply the two energies together to derive the specious 100J WTH.

 

Now not having concluded the validity of either of those sleights of hand, they now go further into stupid math land and discover an energy equation called E=m.g.h. or is it all to provide very dubious support for that ridiculous equation to begin with. They would have us believe that we live in a world which can allow E=md and also E=mad or mfd. Such a conclusion is insane!

 In any case this E=mgh equation (along with either of the squared functor derivatives) should ring alarm bells because they won't work at unity values of E- d- h- g- F etc. This is all because Newton et al came up with the idea that there is some sort of extra potential energy of height residing in any lifted object in a gravitational field. Duh! Ever tried squaring 1, or multiplying three ones together? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Take the sidewise case. I can move an object sidewise all over the shop. I can press it up against the withholding device of the experiment but once released, it doesn't matter at all what the force is. It only matters what the distance the object of mass moved or the EQUVALENCE of terminal velocity of momentum it arrived at.

So the SEP declares that to be ditto for the gravity case.

Now gravity has a different problem in that the force is still being applied when the falling object hits the ground. That's OK we can sort that out by the fact that in the inelastic theoretical case the Earth is forced to move infinitesimally. That would be the same in the sidewise case if I slammed an object against a wall with the same continuing force I used to accelerate it.

 

In both cases variable density and elasticity causes a variety of observable results but as I have stated in the thesis--- Any negative change in the acceleration rate (such as landing, slamming into etc.) immediately voids the previous analysis or experiment. The inelastic (hard object and Earth) calculations including the energy calc (which is exactly as expected) are carried out in the thesis. It turns out to be that its upon landing that a doubling of the energy is realised because of the continuing force and when considering energy of deceleration then the energy used is calculated as if it were being decelerated at 9.81m/s/s. In other words a collision into another similar object would accelerate the new object to the same velocity but over the next distance beyond that the force is still acting so we get a new acceleration and we now have two energies. 1/ of momentum 2/ of acceleration over the comparable distance to the new momentum of double the velocity and therefore double the energy. So E=2mv is fairly correct for freefall into other objects including the earth.

 

 

 

Argument for vis viva Sqrt reduced to single units of value.

 

Argument to be upheld (earth surface, vacuum, frictionless, no getting in the weeds of any irrelevant energy work conceptualism and also; constant forces are at work unless specified. Note that freefall occurs to the conceptual point of momentum/or distance only.)

 

Active premise 1/ The weight of an object is exactly similar to the mass. The said weight is a true measure of the constantly acting gravitational force.

DISAGREE--- Go fishing or take up a different pursuit.

AGREE--- Go to next.

 

2/ The gravitational force 'g' is 9.80665 Newtons caused by the said mass exhibiting a weight of 1kg in earth's gravitational field.

 

3/ The Weak equivalence principle (WEP) declares this 'g' force to be directly proportional to weight, which can be truly and conveniently stated as 9.81Newtons (N) per kg. In that regard all objects of various weights will fall at the same rate (by WEP). Even though 'g' is ALMOST EQUIVALENT TO BUT NOT EQUAL TO the weight and mass of 1kg, we will now evaluate that 'g' force as 10Newtons per kg weight and mass; or for now, just plain (10N) for clarity.

 

Under Newtonian measurements, it was observed that an object free falling under the singular and continuous force of gravity reached a terminal velocity (v) of 10m.s. after one second. From this we can derive an acceleration rate of 10m.s.s

In a gravity nul in space or sidewise on earth The 'g' force NO LONGER EXISTS. Therefore the Newton--- ten to be true--- is only an equivalent force to a 1kgF of weight. It is no longer 'g'; got it! In that mechanical inertial state the Newton does not equal mass in any way shape or form.

*If you continue to argue then I suggest you just go back to the classroom and teach the standard physics because you are not a scientist. Scientists get serious brain trauma from analysing concepts like this in depth. Lol

If you are still in doubt let me be very clear: The biggest mistake that Newton made was to invent the Newton term/unit. Although being somewhat useful; the Newton IS NOT A VALUE OF FORCE WHICH IS CAUSED BY SOME SORT OF UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF FACT. In fact the Newton contains the seeds for it's own conceptual nightmarish and circularly self supporting error. To go straight to the truth we need to start and finish all our experiments with the ORIGINAL TERM FOR FORCE, which is the kilogram force unit (kgF).

 

4/ There are (9.81) Newtons/kg in 1kgF/kg. Therefore the 'g' force of 9.81N is exactly equivalent to 1kgF.

DISAGREE--- Go fishing m'boy!

AGREE--- keep going.

 

5/ A gravitational force of 1kgF acting on a 1kg object will cause an acceleration rate which is exactly equivalent to 3/ above. The pertinent result is that 1kgF results in a terminal velocity of 10m.s after a fall of about half that. Therefore the energy in the fall (exactly before any ground impact) is calculable by either E=mv E=10J--- or W=md W=10J.

 

DISAGREE--- You've come so far. Learn some mathematical and comprehension skills.

AGREE--- keep up the good work. OK I'm  being patronizing but please!! The next problem has been let slide for 500 years already!

 

6/ E=10J. Therefore if we turn the whole deal on its side in space then according to the SEP the energy calculation is the same. A 1kg object being pushed by a constantly acting force of 1kgF will cause a terminal velocity (after one second  over a distance of 10) of 10m.s and energy is calculable by E=mv and ditto as work done by E=md (FORCE AND TIME IRELAVENT). E=10J

 

7/ It is now obvious that there is NO SUCH THING AS POTENTIAL ENERGY OF HEIGHT OTHER THAN WHAT IS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FROM THE 'g'  FORCE ITSELF. By a simple computation we can see that (with all else being equal) the energy in either a freefall or a sidewise push of ten meters is 10J and not the 100J that the Newton calculation gives.

 

8/ THE GIANT PROBLEM: The reason is; that for 500 years the folks have missed the fact that the 10 Newtons is actually the unity 'g' force which HAS ALREADY BEEN MULTIPLIED BY TEN IN THE UNIT CONVERSION SO if you miss that YOU END UP WITH A FALSE MATHEMATICAL EQUATION OF E=10N times 10m =100J. That's not at all correct because that equation is actually the erroneous E=Fd WTH. Even the correct equations of E=mv and E=md end up with the specious quantification of E=10N times 10m WTH. So now a mass is measured in Newtons . What a load of clap trap!

 

DISAGREE--- OK then also evaluate this!

 

9/ One method (stated in the literature) for deriving one Joule is that a force of 1N pushing for one second sidewise on a mass of 1kg derives 1Joule of energy. Such a specious equation can only get derived from the SEP if you make the stupid mistake of changing the 'g' force from 10 Newtons to just 1 Newton at the 1m freefall height. WTH. Such a fraudulent equation has been to derived via the SEP to somehow support the (1m derives 10J and 10m derives 100J argument). A 1m freefall results in a TV of 0.1m.s .The acceleration rate is not exponential. So 1N at any distance of 1m is not related to 1Joule of work/energy at all. So that method is wrong! Two Joules would be more accurate. Again with the E=2m.d yeah?

 

DISAGREE--- So you're prolly one of the peeps who reckon that m.s.s should be written like--- m.s2. That can only lead to another specious derivative of the Joule. The problem with all that is; that m.s.s IS NOT A FRIGGING EQUATION--- it's an expression of the change of rate over time; just like the expression of the change of rate over distance is expressed in m.s.m. How do you square that huh?

 

DISAGREE--- looks like another 500 years LMAO.

AGREE--- Welcome to the truth of vis viva square rooted.

 

 

How the E=mv2 was derived.

 

Back in the 1600s when Christiaan Huygens was mucking about with his balls, it became noticed by Leibniz and Bernoulli that objects being dropped into clay* appeared to contain a squared amount of energy, and due to that it was an easy delusion to consider that the rate of speed increase in a gravitational field appeared to be by a squared function as well. That was pretty much the case but Huygens didn't know about force yet. Newton was discovering that at the time. The velocity increases at a steady rate it's only the distance of fall which is an exponential curve by rt 2h/g. This is an important fact in the following analysis of mine.

So it became the decided opinion of Mr H that the energy in the accelerating object was being increased by a squared rate as well, so from that mistake he thought incorrectly that energy could be derived as mass by velocity squared.

That was actually from a conceptual mistake because he didn't understand the constant force of gravity involved. That really meant that a constant force was building energy at a constant rate which may have APPEARED TO BE SQUARED to him. However if we consider a constant force instead we should understand that the energy is not increasing at a squared rate and neither is velocity because the new force per second is adding energy to that which had already arrived in the system the second before and so forth and that is the same amount. It is force which causes the concept of energy and not just velocity per se -because we have the mass to consider for energy to be derived- but note should be taken that the rate of increase of velocity and energy is proportional and because the latter is also proportional to mass, that leads to E=mv. There appears to be a problem for the distance for E=md or E=1*0.45. that's not true at all. There is no problem because whenever the falling object reaches the distance of 1m the work energy will have been done. The rest of the work gets done at the bottom during the splat. The object at instantaneously evaluated momentum retains a component of about half the original potential energy of height as Work potential. If you fall to the ground your body gets to do some serious work. That equation isn't the object here.

So we now know that the gravitational acceleration rate is a straight line on the graph at about 10m.s.s. and energy is increased at a steady rate and is calculable by E=mv. The height to time graph is the one that's curved. Don't get confused.

Unfortunately for science and Mr Newton who was communicating with Mr H, the squared functor for energy stuck.

*I have analysed this clay problem at length and have debunked the conclusions arrived at.

 

 

Problems with energy conservation and a possible violation

 

Everyone should understand that momentum gets conserved but energy is not conserved with E=1/2mv2. The reasons given are laughable. Maybe energy is lost to the environment and other places in the system. No that's not the reason. That's just losses which results in less than expected momentum and energy and we are SUPPOSED TO IGNORE THAT FOR THE EXERCISE.

 

For example Someone posed this example: A frictionless skater with a mass of one and a velocity of 10 skates up behind another skater and gives them a big hug and they both go skating off with a combined mass of 2 and a velocity of 5. Momentum is conserved. In The case of E=P=mv then energy is also conserved.

Let's try vis viva--- E=mv2 will do. First with one skater E=1*102 =100J.

Now for the huggers. E=1*52. There is actually an energy conservation violation.

Please don't make an excuse that the energy is being dissipated due to losses. You idiot! We are dealing with theoretical lossless functions all round! You can't just bring in entropy whenever you want. There are no clay balls in this theoretical world. All objects are perfectly elastic and they share their momentums, rebounds and energies perfectly. There is a mathematical violation of the mechanical energy conservation law.

It doesn't work you morons --- not even halved. Get a grip and fix this! Yes ad hominem time. It's been nearly 500 years!