More on work and energy

Not open for further replies.


Forum Staff
Apr 2008
On the dance floor, baby!
Hey, topsquark.

You have just closed my thread:
Okay. You've got an experiment. Do it and see what happens. That's how progress in Science works. If your experiments prove me wrong then so be it.

I do not agree with your ideas and I find them to be confusing because you are using terms from the "standard" description of Physics but are giving them different definitions.

I disagree with you. I am making no secret about that. On the other hand I am the one that is responsible for making sure that the content on the Fora is in keeping with the use of the Scientific Method. Your articles are stating that the Physics discovered and taught over the last 300 or so years is completely wrong but your ideas lack depth to do a proper comparison. (And again your use of redefined terms is a source of confusion.)

Just like any other member here I feel I can accept or reject any new ideas that are posted here. My opinion is that you need to do a lot more work on the basics before I can even think of listening to you. As an Administrator I feel that everyone has a right to be heard and I do not get emotional about it. If you don't believe me then consider that you still have a thread open on this topic. I closed one but left the other open for more discussion. And please note that I have not banned you, nor have I threatened to do so. I give just about anyone a chance to openly discuss new ideas so long as they will respond intelligently to others that may disagree. In fact there are members here that feel I give too much leeway on that score.

I am all for new ideas, even some that come across as being completely ridiculous. I have a number of ridiculous ideas of my own. I even touched on one of them in my Master's thesis. (I still think it should work but at the same time I realize I need much more data to proceed with it.)

What I think you need to do next:
1) You need to do some work with Newton's 2nd. The proper statement of this law is \(\displaystyle \sum F_{ext} = \dfrac{dp}{dt}\). This law leads directly to the Law of Conservation of Energy and is apparently causing some conceptual problems for you. If you like go ahead and post a statics problem and work it out fully, specifically including details about how your approach differs from the usual breakdown of the problem. Then we can more easily see where you are trying to take things. I've got a feeling that we will eventually agree with the results even if we can't agree on the description of them.

2) The Calculus is an essential tool of Physics. See if you can't incorporate that with your ideas.

If you really think that I am biased against you or doing a bad job as an Administrator then please PM me with the details and I will forward your message to the site owner. (Due to privacy issues I can't give you his e-mail address.)

  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Apr 2018
Why are you seeking affirmation on an academic help forum?

Why not submit your findings to a physics journal for peer review?

Thank you.

Just read this article describing the current situation in the world of science publishing,

Disrupting the world of science publishing

From my open letter:

All I have is logic. I do not have an official science degree, so Science, Cell, Nature and even the new open-access platforms like ScienceMatters and eLife are closed to me.

I have sent hundreds letters to these scientific magazines (Science, Cell, Nature), incl. personally to each scientist from the editorial teams.

ScienceMatters and eLife first necessarily require you to specify the scientific institute where you work.

I did not know about this journal.
I will study the issue.

Thank you again.
Last edited:
Apr 2018
topsquark thank you for trying.

you still have a thread open on this topic.
Thank you for it and just open the closed thread.

your use of redefined terms is a source of confusion
Of course it may be so.

But I consider that I totally should not give new names to concepts which already have good right names but wrong formulas (content).

Exactly because of it I recommend to go through the document from the very beginning.
Step by step, string by string very carefully.

From the document:

In my opinion, the biggest basic mistakes occurred in science because people have not fully understood all the three Newton’s Discoveries: Newton’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd Laws; incl. what, indeed, is the Force and that there is the Target Acceleration for each Force.

Before I describe the New Concept of Work and the New Concept of Energy, and also the biggest basic mistakes that exist in modern physics, one should fully understand these following key concepts (without this, it is pointless to go further):
• Force;
• Target Acceleration for each Force;
• Blind Pushing;
• Work and Energy in the most general sense.

So in order to understand the whole thing you need start really from the very beginning:
Force and Target Acceleration for each Force (as said, without this, it is pointless to go further).

Okay. You've got an experiment. Do it and see what happens. That's how progress in Science works. If your experiments prove me wrong then so be it.
I did the experiment (which was the “free falling” experiment) and it is what happened, it is its results:

the table --*v1n8ASPdM-F4ek_UqHIsXQ.png

When you (starting from the very beginning) finally get to this part just let me know
and we will discuss the results of this experiment -- why exactly the pushed object is going the different Distance (D) during every second of “free falling”.

Just study the results of this experiment (the table) very carefully.

Please find some time for it.

Help civilization.
Last edited:
Apr 2015
Somerset, England
Please find some time for it.
I wasted enough time reading this nonsnese in other forums.
Please go and learn some real Physics and in particular the correct words.
Mar 2019
Does anybody think that any complaint, any experiment, any journal, any endeavor, any guy, even any country can help mondern physics climb out of the quagmire?
Oct 2017
Does anybody think that any complaint, any experiment, any journal, any endeavor, any guy, even any country can help mondern physics climb out of the quagmire?
What quagmire? The pace of development over the last 20 years has been incredible. It's inspiring!


PHF Helper
Jun 2010
Morristown, NJ USA
Having nothing better to do, I have actually plowed through the document that OlegGor referenced, and believe I have a reasonable grasp of what he's trying to show. Following are my comments are what he has done, the parts that I think hold together logically, and the parts that don't:

1. First, a general comment about OlegGor's claims that classical physics is all wrong. He is wrong about that, absolutely. The mistake he makes is deciding that the conventional definition of work, $W = \vec F \cdot \vec d$ is wrong because he thinks energy must be spent if a force pushes on an object even if the object doesn't move. Thus in his world if an object is stationary on a table then gravity is doing work on it. What he fails to realize is that the classical definitions of work and energy are just that: definitions. They are not "wrong," but on the other hand there is nothing inherently sacred in those definitions. One could coin a term for the product of force time time and then use the formulas that OlegGor presents. I only wish he wouldn't call it "work," as it confuses his readers who are familiar with the classic definition of "work." But, I plow on, trying to remember that his definition of "work" in units of Kg-m/s, and ignoring his oft-repeated erroneous claims that classic physics is all wrong.

2. He claims that the work done by gravity on a falling object is constant per unit time (assuming a constant acceleration due to gravity, g). In his world where where W=F*t I see where he's coming from, but again, this does not mean that classic physics is wrong, under the classic definition of W=f*d (I'm leaving out the vector and dot product notation here for simplicity). His concern is that under classic physics the work done by gravity per unit time changes as the body accelerates in ts fall, whereas he feels this ought to be a constant. He gives no supporting argument for this - but just dismisses the classic view that work done by gravity is constant per unit distance that the object falls. Again - one could work with OlegGor's world view as long as what he presents is mathematically consistent.

3. OlegGor introduces a unit of energy he calls "energies," where 1 energy = 1 N-s. Consider a 20 Kg object sitting motionless on a table: gravity is imparting 196 N-s "energies" per second that it sits there. The object is also subjected to an upward force of 192 Newton by the table, so presumably the table is also pouring 196 "energies" into the object each second as well. He doesn't elaborate as to what happens to these "energies" over time: if a book sits on a shelf for 20 years (as many of the books on my shelves have done) presumably they get loaded with a tremendous amount of "energies" by gravity over that period of time - I have a feeling OlegGor will address this huge store of "untapped energies" when he reveals the third part of his thesis.

4. At this point it would be helpful fro OlegGor to show how his new definitions are superior to the old. Do they allow calculations of mechanical systems using easier concepts than before? Are there phenomena that clasic physics can't explain, but this new way does? Give us an example, please!

5. One area where I suspect OlegGor's approach probably falls down is for situation with non-constant acceleration. An example: in classical physics one can calculate the escape velocity of a projectile from the Earth's surface out into space using traditional work and energy concepts:

KE = PE(infinite distance from Earth) - PE(at Earth's surface)

$ \frac 1 2 m v^2 = \int_{R_e} ^\infty ( \frac {GmM_e}{r^2}) dr = \frac {GM_e}{R_e} $

From this we can derive that the escape velocity for an object from Earth's surface is about 11,200 m/s. How would this be calculated using the "new" concept of energies?

4. OlegGor then gets into a convoluted argument that an electromagnet requires fewer "energies" of electricity to hold up a weight than the amount of "energies" that gravity is imparting on it. And from this comes to the conclusion that electromagnets provide an "energies multiplier." These calculations are a result of an inconsistent use of electrical power (which in classical physics is volts times current, or joules/second) with his "energies" concept. He attempts to convert classical volts times amperes = joules/second into his newly-defined "energies" by deriving a constant that can be used to convert one to the other. The problem here is that given that he claims classical physics is wrong about energy= force x times distance, he can not then use the classic definition of electrical energy equaling volts times amperes. Remember that the definition of a volt is electric potential that can impart one joule of kinetic energy onto one coloumb of charge. Since he doesn't believe in joules as a valid measure, he shouldn't use the classic definition of volts in his work. The result is a nonsense claim that electromagnets can multiply "energies." Ah yes, free energies for all!

OlegGor - in conclusion to assuage these concerns I would ask you to provide us with three specific things:

1. An example where your method provides a more accurate answer to a mechanics problem than the classic way.
2. Show us how to work through the problem I posed earlier about calculating escape velocity, without using classic methods of work and energy.
3. For your electromagnet, show us what fundamental electrical concepts you would use to calculate electrical "energies" without resorting to the classic measure of voltage.
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Apr 2018
Having nothing better to do, I have actually plowed through the document
Have you really read the document carefully?
It looks that not.

So it is senseless to discuss each nonsense you have written.

Just some points.


About calculating the Efficiency of the Electromagnet (29'424 %).

We also get the same result when using the Joule and Watt (Volts times Amperes, or Joules/Second). Read it again but carefully. Also there is the explanation why we have the same result (29'424 %) in both the cases.


“Your” logic is totally wrong and the Joule is an absolutely wrong unit of measure for Work and Energy.

In order to understand the whole thing you need to first learn about

1.1. Force (What is Force indeed);
1.2. Target Acceleration for each Force;
1.3. Blind Pushing of the gravitational Force;
1.4. Work and Energy in the most general sense;

and only then, relying on this knowledge, learn about

1.5. The New Concept of Work and the New Concept of Energy;


From the document:

It’s extremely important to understand that DURING EVERY SECOND of “free falling” the same Energy is required to do the same Work — to increase the velocity of an “free falling” object by the same value of 9.8 m/s.

But the “current” formula for Work and Energy:
erroneously implies that during every second of “free falling” the gravitational Force (F) is doing the different in magnitude Work (W) and that the different in magnitude Energy (E) is being spent on this Work since the pushed object is going the different in magnitude Distance (D) during every second.

And right now below I will give the explanation where exactly is the mistake of modern physics.

Unfortunately, “modern physics” has been incapable to understand why exactly the pushed object is going the different in magnitude Distance (D) during every second of “free falling”.

The thing is (it’s vitally important to understand) that when “free falling” the pushed object during every second (starting since the 2nd second) is going the Summary Distance (D) as the sum (the result) of these two absolutely different kinds of distances:

• the Non-Inertial Distance (D1) being gone by the object due to pushing of the gravitational Force (i.e. due to Work of the gravitational Force);

• the Inertial Distance (D2) being gone by the object due only to the object’s motion by inertia.

D =D1+D2

Also it’s important to understand that when an object is moving only by inertia, then, according to Newton’s 1st Law, no Work is being done and no Energy (no resource) is being spent in this process (because when an object is moving only by inertia it is the same thing that the object is being at rest).

But in this “current” formula for Work and Energy:

W(E)=F*D (where, D=D1+D2)

the Inertial Distance (D2) is erroneously included in the calculation and hence erroneously increases the calculated Work (W) of the gravitational Force (F) during the 2nd second and therefore erroneously increases the calculated Energy (E) spent on this Work during the 2nd second.


Just read the whole document again from the very beginning but carefully.

My recommendations on how to read the document:

Start reading.
(This whole work is strictly built on experiments and consistent logical conclusions. Because of that it is very important to read this document from the very beginning, consistently and carefully (step by step, string by string) without any jumping over.)

As soon as you get to a fragment that you do not understand or that you do not agree with, just write me a note and I will give you additional explanations in extremely simple words.
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.