Discussion on the Existence of Momentum and H-Bomb
Written by Dr. Gary Novak & Dr. Pierre Latour
Dr. Gary Novak and Dr. Pierre Latour present opposing views on fusion energy and supposed errors and misunderstandings in the physics. Herein we provide readers with the email exchange for edification and further open discussion.
Dr. Novak’s opening remarks:
Physicists totally expected to succeed with a nuclear fusion project using lasers, but the results did not produce a significant amount of energy, and the project is being cut back due to failure, as indicated in this National Geographic article: ‘Fusion Energy Quest Faces Boundaries of Budget‘ (Science, July 26, 2013).
As the article indicates, physicists based their energy assumptions on Einstein’s equation, E=mc². A scientific origin for the equation does not exist. It came off the top of Einstein’s head. Einstein paralleled the equation for kinetic energy, KE=½mv². I show simple and unquestionable mathematical proof that the equation for kinetic energy is in error. Velocity should not be squared. Real kinetic energy is simply momentum, mv. Momentum transforms into other forms of energy with conservation, while ½mv² does not. Shown here: http://nov79.com/en/ener.html
In other words, Einstein paralleled an erroneous equation. To parallel the correct equation, he should have said, E=mc. There is a huge difference in the end result when the velocity of light is squared compared to non-squared.What this means is physicists expect a lot more energy from fusion (or disintegration of matter) than is really possible. Why didn’t this false expectation show up with nuclear fission reactions?
Probably because fission contains so many complexities that the total quantity of released energy was tested by trial-and-error rather than theorized.If this is the reason for the failure of laser based nuclear fusion, then other experiments for nuclear fusion will probably fail for the same reason.
Dr. Gary Novak (August 20, 2013)
Dr. Pierre Latour’s First Rebuttal:
Kinetic energy is defined to be ½ mv2.
Momentum is defined to be mv.
Not fair changing definitions by Newton.
Kinetic energy is ½ v * momentum, by algebra.
The Law of Conservation of Momentum follows from Newton’s Second Law of Motion, F = m*a = m * dv/dt
It is fundamental to fluid mechanics, the behavior of fluids to a force gradient. The driving force for fluid motion is a force difference = pressure drop.
The Law of Conservation of Mass (in absence of nuclear reactions) is fundamental for mass transfer. The driving force is a chemical composition difference.
The Law of Conservation of Energy (in absence of nuclear reactions) is 2nd LoT.
Chemical engineering is built on chemical kinetics and these three laws of conservation: mass, energy and momentum.
E = Mc2 has been verified to my satisfaction. It is used to describe the evolution of the universe, cosmology, dominated by nuclear reactions.
Energy can be produced by nuclear fusion of light elements into heaver ones: the H2 bomb works.
Controlled nuclear fusion is based on valid physics but engineering and economics problems remain unsolved.
Fusion power has been investigated as physics research since 1950’s. Princeton fooled around with Tokamak magnetic bottle and failed.
Physicists are not necessarily competent chemical engineers. Chemical engineers are savvy enough to avoid fooling around with controlled fusion, because the engineering problems and economics are unfavorable now.
I would not invest in it, and oppose governments coercing citizens to cough up money for research, development or commercialization. Mankind will get there in due course, maybe in 500 years or so. Leave it to the engineers and entrepreneurs. No hurry; no urgency; no need. We already have lots of cheap energy, so controlled fusion solves no real human problem beyond curiosity.
The NG article was pretty good, but I have found biases and agendas in that noble magazine since I began subscribing in 1970. Like almost every other publication. Everything requires skeptical analytical thinking.
The problem description in paragraph 2 of your reference http://nov79.com/en/ener.html says “but if the same rocket engine adds a one pound force for one second to a roller skate, a lot less energy is added.”
This is not correct. The roller skate receives more velocity and energy than the spacecraft.
Spacecraft: F = MA = MdV/dt
V – Vo = ∫ F/M dt, 0 to 1 sec = Ft/M, t = 1 sec
E – Eo = ½ MV2 = ½ M (F/M)2 = ½ F2 /M
M(V – Vo) = F
Skate: v – vo = F/m
e – eo = ½ F2 /m
m(v – vo) = F
(v – vo)/(V – Vo) = F/m / F/M = M/m > 1, so velocity imparted by force F to skate is greater than that to spacecraft.
(e – eo)/(E – Eo) = M/m > 1, so energy imparted by force F to skate is greater than that to spacecraft.
m(v – vo)/M(V – Vo) = F/F = 1, so momentum imparted by force F to skate is identical to that to spacecraft.
Pierre Latour (August 21, 2013)
Dr. Novak’s First Reply to Dr. Latour:
You have a problem with your concept. Persons such as Pierre Latour are engrossed in fake physics, and they have no intention of improving the standard. You can’t fix that problem and still rely upon physicists. Physics has been so corrupt for so long that physicists are not going to give up the corruption which they have been exploiting.Pierre Latour flatly states that the definition of energy will not be considered. This means four hundred years of criminality in physics is not going to be corrected. No progress is possible under those conditions. Then he applies his fakery to fraudulent criticisms of my energy web site.
Consider these points of fakery: He mentions fluid mechanics, while nothing is relevant about fluids, and he doesn’t explain why. He’s trying to muddle the subject. Then he mentions conservation of mass, when conservation of mass has never been a question–more muddle. He says E=mc² has been verified to his satisfaction. We have to take his word for it. In reality, there is no verification. He mentions its application. Application is not verification. He says hydrogen bombs do work. I can’t explain that. That would have been a valid criticism to consider. It’s such a mysterious subject that it won’t be resolvable.
Considering the dishonesty of physicists, to a point of criminality, I do not assume that hydrogen bombs actually work as physicists claim. But no one can prove them wrong, so they get by with their criminality. It means I have to stick with provable points. I should restate the fusion question without claiming that it proves anything.I’m guessing that hydrogen bombs are really plutonium bombs with a fake hydrogen effect. Sounds preposterous. It’s exactly the standard physicists produce. They prefer total fraud as a method of control while keeping rational persons from competing with them or proving them wrong.
Relativity is an absurdity which is promoted for no other reason. His criticism of my web site is total fraud. He says that my point about a force on a roller skate is not correct. He uses math equations to supposedly prove it. His method is a total fraud, because it uses no numbers. Without numbers, the relationships are undetermined and cannot be given a meaning. The roller skate could have a higher velocity than the space craft, as far as his analysis goes.
In other words, he drew fraudulent conclusions from fakery. The fact is that my statement about a roller skate is totally correct, and the point is simple and unquestionable. Consider these numbers:If a 3 newton force is applied to an 11 kilogram object for seven seconds, the ½mv² is 20. If the 11 kg object is moving at 1,000 km per second, it has a ½mv² of 5.5×10^6.After the 3N force is added for 7 seconds, it has a ½mv² of 5.521×10^6 Subtracting leaves 21,020 difference in ½mv². When the object was moving at 1,000 km/second, it acquired more than ten times as much energy as it did when standing still, which was my point about the roller skate, and which shows the problem with the usual definition of energy.
This is what you are up against when relying upon physicists. They are totally embedded in a culture of fraud so thoroughly that they cannot be physicist and have a trace of intellectual honesty. The problem originates with the fact that science is so demanding that few scientists can actually do what scientists are supposed to be doing. In physics, that problem is infinitely worse than in biology, because the abstractions are almost impervious to experimentation.
On top of it, the math is so incongruous that physicists do not check each others math. It doesn’t reverse engineer. That set of circumstances has resulted in incompetent persons taking over physics and pulling like-minded persons in behind them until they had nothing but a criminal culture established. (The email message which you sent disappeared into the trash of my cell phone, and I can’t get it out, but I can read it.)
Gary Novak (August 23, 2013)
Dr. Pierre Latour’s Second Rebuttal:
Fraudulent Criticism Analysis
This is great! This response to my review reveals what Gary Novak really thinks. He is very sincere when he charges I am “engrossed in fake physics”.
When a debate opponent resorts to name calling, I am confident he realizes he lost the rational debate and had to abandon reasoning. I smoked him out so he must abandon rational thinking. Gary Novak says he is mad at all physicists. He is mad at me. (I am not a physicist. He is guilty of guilt by non-association.)
He rejects English dictionary definitions, calculus, algebra, Newton’s Law of Motion, physics and the basic laws of chemical engineering.
He doesn’t even know how to assign numbers to algebra. If the spacecraft mass is M = 1000 and the roller skate mass is m = 0.01; I know a 10 year old who can figure out m/M = 0.01/1000 = 0.00001.
His personal physics says momentum is energy, so we can forget about momentum. He says roller-skates and spacecraft prove it. He would love a Nobel Prize for his momentous momentum discovery.
He admits he doesn’t know about the Law of Conservation of Momentum from Newton’s Law of Motion, basic to fluid mechanics, which describes how fluids, gases and liquids, flow. Which has been applied by chemical, mechanical, aeronautical and hydraulic engineers since Roman times. If his new theory is correct, fluid mechanics is fake. (If fluid mechanics is correct, his new theory is fake.)
He reads attempts to clarify the issue as “trying to muddle the subject.” He is not able to learn.
When I question his assertions, he merely claims they are unquestionable, i.e. I have no right to question his dogma. That violates my First Amendment rights. Nobody has a right to review his ideas.
He complains science is so “demanding” and math is so “incongruous” that people don’t understand it. While true for many, it is not Nature’s failing, it is a human failing. He suffers from it.
He says “abstractions are almost impervious to experimentation”. Yet he charges $50 to his credit card at every gas fill-up. Law of multiplication says 3 apples * $0.4/apple = $1.20 and 10 roller-skates * $10/roller-skate = $100 every time, everywhere. I know how to use two roller-skates simultaneously!
Expressing anger at facts and logical people is a well-known symptom of NPD, narcissist personality disorder.
“This is what you are up against when relying upon” irrational people. This is how I handle them; with kid gloves and kindness. I did not call him any names here; I stuck to facts, logic and provable assertions.
I recommend you publish this exchange (not worthy of being called a debate): his start, my review, his rejection and my appraisal. If you get his credentials, publish them.
Shedding light is healthy. Publish or perish. Let humanity decide. Have a wonderful day. Time is short; very short.
Pierre R Latour (August 23, 2013)
Dr. Novak’s Second Reply to Dr. Latour:
Fraudulent Criticism Analysis Response
Yes, I encourage you to post these emails as a debate.What I say on my web site is that if a rocket is used to add a one pound force for one second to a spacecraft moving at 25,000 miles per hour, a lot of energy is added; but if the same one pound force is added for one second to a roller skate, a lot less energy is added. Same transformation; different amounts of energy.Pierre Latour ridicules this claim stating that some symbols which he uses are larger than some other symbols. Specifically, the mass of the space craft (M) is larger than the mass of the roller skate (m).So here are the specific numbers: The metric system will be used.
The one pound roller skate is 0.45 kg.
The one pound force is 0.138 Newtons.
F=ma, a=F/m = 0.138/0.45 = 0.307 m/s/s
v=at = 0.307 x 1 = 0.307 m/s
½mv² = ½(0.45)(0.307)² = 0.0212 fake JoulesThe spacecraft will be 100 kg.
The 25,000 miles per hour = 40,233 km/hr
a=F/m = 0.138/100 = 0.00138 m/s/s
change in v=at = 0.00138 x 1 = 0.00138 m/s
total velocity = change in velocity plus starting velocity
= 0.00138 + 40,233 = 40,233.00138 m/s
½mv² after = ½(100)(40,233.00138)² = 8.093472000 x 10^10
½mv² before = ½(100)(40,233)² = 8.093471445 x 10^10
added ½mv² = before – after = 5552 fake Joules of energyComparison = fake joules for spacecraft / fake joules for roller skate = 5552 / 0.0212 = 261,887 times more fake energy for the spacecraft.Any idiot would know this when there is that much difference.
The physicist is so hung up on fake math which he doesn’t understand that he cannot see the trees through the forest.
Gary Novak (August 24, 2013)
Dr. Latour’s Third Rebuttal to Dr. Novak:
Fraudulent criticism, analysis. Case Closed.
With this reply, Novak violated my terms for publication. The reviewer has the right to go last. I withdraw my offer to publish any of it.
You only asked his thoughts about publishing the four item thread, not replying to my rebuttal and continuing the debate.
Besides his answer is still incorrect. Even when he agrees with me the mass of his spacecraft, M, is larger than his roller skate, m: m/M < 1.
If Novak is a microbiologist, he should have recognized I showed him how blood flows by conservation of momentum from Newton’s law of motion. Laws of fluid mechanics work throughout the body and all microbiology.
I showed the thread to a respected colleague and got this response “WOW – That guy can’t see the sun.”
I advise you to drop the subject entirely. The reviewer has the right to go last. Fini.
Pierre R Latour (August 24, 2013)
Dr. Novak’s Third Reply:
Fraudulent criticism, analysis. Case Closed. Continued
Since Pierre Latour showed that physicists are nothing but ignorant frauds, with another physicists agreeing with him, how about posting this article from a web page of mine on hydrogen bombs. Why “Hydrogen Bombs” are not Hydrogen Bombs.The mathematical proof of the misdefinition of kinetic energy is simple and unquestionable. The logic is just as unquestionable.
Rockets clearly show the error. When they are constant powered, they produce a constant force. Constant force means the product is force times time. Force times time is mathematically equal to mv, momentum, for an accelerating mass. It means rockets transform energy in proportion to mv, not mv². A closely related proof is even more obvious. Power is defined in physics as rate of energy addition.
For ½mv² of a constant mass, power is ½mv² divided by time, which is force times velocity, Fv. Notice what happens with a constant powered rocket (as most are). They increase in velocity, which causes the total Fv to increase. The power of the mass is increasing, while the power of the rocket engine is constant. Eventually, the mass can acquire power at a rate greater than the engine provides, an impossibility. Where did Einstein get the equation, E=mc²?
Physicists say he paralleled the kinetic energy equation, KE=½mv². Since that equation can be proven to be in error, he paralleled an erroneous equation. Where it matters is hydrogen fusion. Physicists expect to get energy from hydrogen fusion in proportion to E=mc². If that equation were to parallel the correct definition of energy, it would have to be E=mc. There is immensely less energy when not squaring the velocity of light. It means there is very little energy in hydrogen fusion.
A few weeks ago, American physicists discontinued their attempts to create useable energy through hydrogen fusion using lasers due to total failure (National Geographic).
They were so sure that the procedure would work that they did no preliminary experiments. Everything worked flawlessly, except there was almost no energy released. Of course there were theories of what might have gone wrong, but nothing concrete enough to continue with the project. The result is another indication that the energy equation is in error, and E does not equal mc².
The counter-argument is that hydrogen bombs show that there is a huge amount of energy in hydrogen fusion. A closer look indicates more wishful thinking than fact. Consider this quote on hydrogen bombs from Wikipedia:
“…though in most applications the majority of its destructive energy comes from uranium fission, not hydrogen fusion alone.”
Physicists cannot determine the difference between most and all. It means there is no verification that hydrogen fusion exists in hydrogen bombs. The description of how hydrogen bombs work looks like more wishful thinking and hocus pocus than fact.
When physicists cannot produce hydrogen fusion with several decades of trying under laboratory conditions, the assumption of it happening in the clutter of an explosion is not credible. Since the misdefinition of kinetic energy is beyond question, and Einstein created an improper equation for turning mass into energy, the mysteries of hydrogen fusion are beyond doubt due to an absence of significant energy being produced from fusion.
Gary Novak (August 25, 2013)
Dr. Latour’s Fourth Response:
Fraudulent criticism, analysis. Case Closed. Continued, Waiver
While consensus does not prove scientific law, it does establish it as knowledge until a better theory comes along.
Particle physics stands with quantum mechanics, Relativity, Newton’s Principia and evolution among the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind. Particle physics explains and quantifies the energy of fusion. It is confirmed with data from particle accelerators, H-Bombs, stars and cosmology. Mankind has unanimously accepted the existence of H-Bomb energy since the first was exploded at Eniwetok Atoll on 1Nov 1952 and the Rosenbergs were executed 19Jun1953 for divulging its existence to Stalin (the execution received a standing ovation).
Einstein proved matter is a condensed form of energy, M = E/c2. Particle matter, radiation, neutrinos, dark matter and dark energy is all there is to it, as far as anybody knows. Momentum lives!
As an invited reviewer, I have refuted Novak’s denial of the existence of momentum (different from energy) to the best of my ability. Novak has more work to do to convince me he is right on this one.
If you care to publish this exchange in its entirety, I grant a waiver to my earlier objection. I am opposed to censorship and value consensus, even a tiny one like agreement to publish. Fini 2.
Pierre R Latour (August 27, 2013)
PSI wishes to thank Dr. Novak and Dr. Latour for opening up their lively discussion to public debate. Readers are invited to add further points of relevance in the comments section below.