Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree9Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 15th 2018, 11:58 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 20
Energy and Work

Hello!
I have made big discoveries about Energy. These discoveries completely change our understanding of the universe and give us access to new clean Energy.

The Revolution in Science. The Biggest Ever Discoveries in Physics. The New Inexhaustible Energy.
https://medium.com/p/d8919d784567

Discovery #1
The New Concept of Work and the New Concept of Energy;
The New Universal Formula for Work and Energy;
The New Unit of measure for Work and Energy;
The Explanation of the 1st biggest basic mistake that exists in modern physics;
The Discovering of the Static mechanical Work and the Explanation of the 2nd biggest basic mistake (the prime mistake) that exists in modern physics;
The New Formula for Kinetic Energy;
The New Formula for Potential Energy;
The New Formula for Power;
The Aftermaths of the Discovery#1.

Discovery #2
The Detection of Energy Imbalance and Discovering of New Energy;
The New Energy and the New Ability of Electromagnets;
About the Multiplier of Electrical Energy (MEE).

Discovery #3
The New Law of Conservation of Energy;
The New Concept of Charge;
The New Concept of Mass.

The Revolution in Science. The Biggest Ever Discoveries in Physics. The New Inexhaustible Energy.
https://medium.com/p/d8919d784567

Last edited by OlegGor; Oct 20th 2018 at 08:45 PM.
OlegGor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16th 2018, 02:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by OlegGor View Post
Hello!
I have made big discoveries about Energy. These discoveries completely change our understanding of the universe and give us access to new clean Energy.
That's terrific ... I love to see people thinking for themselves ..

I've had a quick look at your site , and you certainly spent some time and care over it ....

Quite a large section is taken with dealing with a man holding a weight over his head ...

And how silly scientists say he's doing no work ... when he clearly is doing a lot of work ...

Can you walk us through that part???
topsquark likes this.

Last edited by oz93666; Oct 16th 2018 at 02:48 AM.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16th 2018, 03:13 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 249
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
That's terrific ... I love to see people thinking for themselves ..

I've had a quick look at your site , and you certainly spent some time and care over it ....
There's a difference between people "thinking for themselves" and people just making stuff up and then claiming they have discovered new physics, something which happens much too often.

In fact, I have no problem with the former (making stuff up is fun!) bu only the latter, usually because 99 times out of 100 there is no literature review, no references, no thought to the existing literature or body of work.

In this case, there's plenty of problems in the OP's understanding of mechanics. Luckily, we're here to help, but the OP has to be willing to participate.
topsquark and Pmb like this.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16th 2018, 04:27 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
There's a difference between people "thinking for themselves" and people just making stuff up ...
Give the guy a chance , benit ...

I'm trying to get a debate started here . I'm sure it will be entertaining.
topsquark likes this.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16th 2018, 04:49 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 249
Okay, I can wait before posting my rebuttal...

As a primer though, let's consider the following forum thread:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-is-being-done
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16th 2018, 06:22 AM   #6
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,464
I browsed through it.

You are in essence reworking (pun intended) some basic definitions. That's fine and, speaking from a theoretical point of view, you really dig into things. It stirs up all the flotsom and jetsom of the paradigms involved.

I am not going to waste time and try to tell you that there is only one way to do Physics. But let's just say that we have a definition of work to be "w" as opposed to the usual Newtonian based definition "W." Once you do that you can compare both w and W. But you need to be more careful about any statement like w > W for the simple reason that you are comparing two different things.

Let's say that barrel A has three largish apples and barrel B has four slightly smaller apples. Now the number of apples is easy to compare but if you are going to get the best value for your bushel you need to look at some other property such as volume or density. The number of apples is a useless property to compare with.

-Dan
HallsofIvy and benit13 like this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17th 2018, 04:02 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 404
Events having no work...

Also, "no work" events include:

1) Person supports weight above head.
2) Person walks, runs or skips (no slipping) up (or down) a flight of stairs.
3) Gymnast from sitting position climbs (no slip) a rope.

####
THERMO Spoken Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17th 2018, 06:29 PM   #8
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,569
Why are you guys taking him seriously? The entire page is nothing more than mistakes and insults. E.g. he claims that holding an object up in a g-field does no work when we all know that no work is done on the object but our muscles are expending energy to hold a contraction. Replace the man with a statue to see his mistake.

I refuse to read a page which is so insulting based on his poor understanding of physics.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 03:29 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 249
Considering the OP hasn't replied yet, I'll just go ahead and post what I was going to write a few days ago:



I've taken a look at your website. Let's look at some it:

Title:
The Revolution in Science. The Biggest Ever Discoveries in Physics. The New Inexhaustible Energy Source.

These are massive claims and massive claims require massive evidence. To back up these claims you need to show,
1. Your work is correct
2. Your work is different and not done by anyone else.
3. Your work is profound enough to cause a revolution

You're also claiming that there's some form of perpetual motion machine. Note that humankind has tried to invent a perpetual motion machine for many hundreds of years and failed, so I hope that you have the evidence to back up your claims...

The claims are so wild, you basically appear like an internet troll...


After the title, you state some "mistakes". The first one is:

As a brief ANNOUNCEMENT?—?the 2 biggest mistakes of modern science that I found
The 1st biggest basic mistake
These formulas for Work and Energy
$\displaystyle W(E)=Fd $
$\displaystyle E= \frac{mv^2}{2} $
are erroneous and the Joule, in its turn, is an erroneous unit of measure for Work and Energy.
So... there are a few mistakes here (on your part). Firstly, this is an argument called "proof by assertion". You simply state that there is an error without providing evidence that it is erroneous. I also scrolled down and couldn't find any experiments or references where it is demonstrated to be false. Proof by assertion is one of the worst arguments to make (it's not a proof/ it's a blunder). If you do plan to provide evidence that it is erroneous, then that should come first. That is, you should start from a "reasonable" position, such as known science that underpins your work or well known axioms (state your references), and then demonstrate, through some sequence of logical arguments, that they lead to the conclusion. This is a fundamental technique for disproof.

Secondly, you are also not representing accurately the theories you want to disprove. What you are referring to is the Work-Energy theorem, which considers much more than just formulae. There is a whole set of considerations associated with potential energy, gravity and subsequent motion. This is why any piece of work must include references to existing work. You must state precisely what previous works you want to disprove. With something so fundamental, you may want to reference an undergraduate textbook or a review paper rather than the very latest literature, but it needs to be there.

I know you need some form of introduction to explain the premises of your work, but you shouldn't start with those sorts of wild claims... look at the existing structures people use for papers (abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusions) and use it. There's a reason people use those structures in their work; they are highly effective at communicating scientific work.


Then you go onto the "second mistake":

The 2nd biggest basic mistake (the prime mistake)
In physics, the concept of Static Mechanical Work is mistakenly missing there.

So, for example, scientists, for now, correctly consider that the person on the left (lifting and lowering the 2 kg object) is doing Mechanical Work and is spending their Energy on it; but scientists, for now, mistakenly consider that the person on the right (holding the 20kg object motionless in the air) is NOT DOING Mechanical Work and is NOT SPENDING their Energy on it!
Again, this is proof by assertion. You should demonstrate evidence that shows that the work-energy theorem is valid for the case when someone lifts a 2 kg weight and does not work when they lift a 20 kg weight. You don't present any experimental evidence for this.

Consider, for example, the following thread where someone is curious about the same thing and then asks someone about it:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-is-being-done

You should:
1. Look up the research that shows how this works (not just websites... find journal papers)
2. Reference the literature in your work and state clearly what they are arguing for
3. Provide evidence that demonstrates they are wrong and why

Note: it is YOUR responsibility to be informed of all of the current work on a given topic and to present all important information to the reader.


Here's my advice:

1. You are trying to run before you can walk. If I were you, I would drop the whole "I'm amazing and discovering new physics" charade and start learning. If there's something specific that you're not sure about and want an explanation (such as "why do I have to spend energy to lift a heavy weight when the work-energy theorem suggest no work is done if there is no change in height?"), then look for one. We have the internet, so this has never been easier. I'm not even saying that everything is solved and there's no room for improvement.... just make sure you've done the hard work before you start making claims for new physics.
2. The set of well known physics laws (the kind found in school syllabuses) has been tested by many, many people over hundreds of years by people much cleverer than me and they are still relevant. Therefore, if something looks weird or dodgy, then chances are there is a good explanation somewhere. A good attitude to have is "There's an existing explanation somewhere... where is it?"... then look for it!
3. If you want to get good at physics, get some reputable textbooks and study them; read through them and do the problem exercises. Even better, apply for a university course and get a degree in it. It takes a lot of work, but it's worth it.
4. If you want to do professional quality research, do the above and then apply for a Masters course or PhD. You will get the training you need to be able to perform cutting edge research and do it in a way that will actually make progress (you will make your mark on the existing knowledge base and you'll be able to put new knowledge to your name).
5. If you want to continue doing what you're doing for fun, then fine, making stuff up is fun; but don't then try and con people into thinking your theories are correct when you haven't put the work in. We have a responsibility to educate and communicate the truth, not peddle our own pet theories that haven't been tested or verified.
6. If you want to continue doing what you're doing for a career, you're going to look like a complete idiot to those of us who actually know how to do research. Just be careful; the rest of the internet is not as forgiving as this forum!

Finally... if you want help, you only need to ask. My advice may seem harsh, but you need to consider our perspective; you're claiming to be a revolutionary scientist with massive claims and then fail to even perform the most basic tasks required to even argue small details or provide content for conference papers.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18th 2018, 03:54 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
Considering the OP hasn't replied yet, I'll just go ahead and post .....
It's shooting fish in a barrel , benit ... not worth the effort , particularly since TS hasn't bothered to engage us ...

Have a look at the sonoluminescence thread ... much bigger fish , but they're swimming free , require skill to shoot!
benit13 likes this.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
energy, work



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Work and Energy NSB3 Advanced Mechanics 1 Nov 12th 2014 01:03 PM
Work-Energy reiward Energy and Work 1 Oct 12th 2010 10:01 AM
Work and Energy sake Kinematics and Dynamics 14 May 14th 2009 10:47 PM
work and energy MSelowa Energy and Work 1 Mar 31st 2009 04:55 AM
Work and Energy Inertialforce Energy and Work 1 Oct 31st 2008 08:51 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed