| Energy Misdefined | ||
| ||
| In Physics | ||
|
1. quick proof |
The rocket equations were sent to me by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I show them and use them exactly as they were given to me including the same style of notation. However, I was not given the formula for velocity, so I derived it from calculus. I checked it against simple math using incremental points in place of the smooth curve of calculus. I explain the velocity derivation on a web page titled "Math Explained." Time is derived from the velocity equation by using algebra. Rational Results The end results show that the rocket math is correct, because any error in math would produce nonresults, not the wrong definition of energy. To elaborate, when debunkers say I should have done something different with the math, it's like saying you could put a bolt improperly in a Pontiac and get a Ford. Or someone tried to build a birdhouse and got it wrong and ended up with an automobile. Modifying multi-step math doesn't produce a rational result; it produces nonsense. The end result of the math is the ratio of 2.00000000000000 for the first two tests, and a ratio of 1.00000000000000 for the second two tests. Any error would replace the zeros with other numbers. The Rocket Product is Force The function of the rocket is to replace gravity. Force is the only effect of gravity; and force is the only contributing factor of the rocket. The method of calculating force of the rocket is to multiply rate of mass loss times separation velocity of exhaust. The result is 10 newtons of force, and it never varies. Notice that kinetic energy of exhaust does not enter into the force calculation. This means kinetic energy of exhaust is not relevant. Debunkers will look for it and try to add it some way, but there is no way to add it. This also means efficiency of the rocket motor is not relevant. Burn Time Represents Engergy So where does energy enter in? It's in burn time. The rocket is constant powered, which means it burns fuel at a constant rate. Therefore, burn time indicates amount of energy used. In other words, a two second burn uses twice as much energy as a one second burn. Why use a Rocket? Debunkers say why use a rocket at all? What does it show? It shows the same thing gravity shows. It uses force to accelerate a mass giving it energy. But a rocket uses measurable energy. The only question is whether to combine force with distance or time. In the past, physicists have been combining force with distance and getting an erroneous concept of energy. When force is combined with time, it produces a correct definition of energy. Debunkers will say that the combination of force and distance is work, not energy. But it equals energy for an accelerating mass (by the erroneous definition of energy). In fact, at the level of real science, energy is more often measured (supposedly) as force times distance than ½mv², because it's easier. Conservation is the Test The test of energy (and momentum) in physics has always been "that which is conserved." In physics, the concept of conservation is always clear. It means component elements can be rearranged, and totals stay the same. It also means energy transformations can occur, and totals stay the same. Therefore, proof is a test of conservation by rearranging components. Falling objects do this, as indicated by Leibniz in 1686 when he created the present concept of energy. He rearranged force and distance and claimed energy (vis viva) stayed the same. But he had no method of testing his claim. The rocket math shows that when force and distance are rearranged, total energy does not stay the same; there is twice as much for the first mass as the second mass. But if force and time are rearranged, total energy is the same for both masses. This test is based upon the claim that when twice as much fuel is burned by the rocket, twice as much kinetic energy is transferred to the total forward mass, and therfore mass ratios determine the proportions. Strange Efficiency The counter-argument to these facts enters an ether zone, which is where debunkers try to do their arguing. It states (or implies) that even though twice as much fuel is used by the rocket in test A compared to test B, the energy added to the test mass is the same. The translation of this concept is that efficiency changes by strange criteria. Efficiency is a comparative measurement. Here it would mean that the amount of ½mv² added to the test mass stays the same, while the rocket burns twice as much fuel. Is this valid? No, because the transformation does not produce the same totals when components are rearranged. To say efficiency of energy transfer changes as component factors are rearranged is to abandon conservation laws. Conceptualization Here's a conceptualization: Why does the rocket need twice as much fuel in test A, if the end result is the same amount of kinetic energy as in test B? Supposedly, each atom of fuel banging against the combustion chamber only transfers half as much kinetic energy to the test mass in A as it does in B. At the micro level, there is nothing different that happens in the combustion chamber. The atoms of fuel are moving at 1000 meters per second, while the rocket is moving at 0-4.4 m/s. But even this difference is not real, because the fuel and combustion chamber move with the rocket, so the separation velocity of the exhaust is always the same. This means nothing different is happening in the combustion chamber in test A compared to test B. So where does the mysterious efficiency change come from? It doesn't exist. There's nothing in the transformation that sees a difference between moving one mass and the other beyond the amount of fuel that is burned. The only difference is in the amount of fuel used, and not how it is used. The amount correlates with mv being kinetic energy, not ½mv². Bizarre Argumenet There is still another bizarre argument to look at. Only a portion of the force (hence energy) is attributable to the payload. With test A (4 kg payload) one sixth of the starting mass is payload, and hence only one sixth of the force or energy should be attributed to the payload. And with test B (1 kg payload) 1/21 of the starting mass is payload. Why then is there one half as much energy per atom of fuel going to the payload in test A, when the payload is a larger part of the total? According to the erroneous definition of energy, the distance moved is relevant. But it is approximately one fourth as much in test A as in test B, not one half (23 m vs. 82 m). But then, the attributable force is approximately four times as much for the larger mass. Now look at the end result. Approximately one fourth the distance for test A and four times the attributable force equals approximately the same energy as force times distance or ½mv² for both test A and test B. This is the starting point, which says there is the same energy acquired by test mass A and test mass B by the erroneous definition, but it doesn't explain why twice as much fuel was burned to produce the energy in test mass A compared to test mass B or why each atom of combusted fuel delivered one half as much energy to test mass A compared to test mass B. Proportioning Then the muddled argument could be made that the amount of energy attributed to the test masses was not properly proportioned in the calculations. The burn time for the total rocket masses was about half as much for A as B (10.6 seconds vs. 18.5 seconds), while the mass was four times as much for A as B. One half of four is still twice as much burn time for A as B.
|