# 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:
Fusion Energy

No.

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:

Fraudulent Criticism

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.

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)

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)

Editor’s Note:

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.

• ### Alderman

|

It has been stated that:
force=mass x acceleration ( F=ma)
always.
A rejoinder considered a force applied to a brick wall, that is a rigid body. In that case there is a force but no movement and thus no acceleration, therefore, it is postulated, the condition ‘always’ is incorrect.
Another post told us that a countervailing force is set up with that wall.
Following up on this point, and ignoring transient conditions, that countervailing force will match the originally applied force, equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. There is, thus, no net force. No movement, no net force, no acceleration, the laws of science appear to apply as usual.
If someone has the time and interest they could elaborate on the transient conditions.

• ### Pierre Latour

|

ewiljan: Sure, I can define temperature. I know what it is, how to measure it and design thermostats.

OK, I see what all the fuss is about. You say science is a mess. You are angry with momentum, F = mA and Newton; nuclear fusion, E = Mc2 and Einstein; H-bombs, math, science and all scientists.

Since my 40 year engineering career incorporated science and the scientific method, you are upset with me too. You are really mad that I defended science with logic, reason, math, passion and a bit of flair.

I give up. You win. Your emotional beef is with Newton, not me. You are welcome to be the last man standing in this blog. I withdraw with my victory trophy.

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Pierre Latour”]ewiljan: Sure, I can define temperature. I know what it is, how to measure it and design thermostats. [/quote]
I can “do” the same, but I do not know what temperatire “is”! Especially for an isotherem. ant have tried to define temperature
but only spear of the relationship of “temperature” with something else. When I measure “the temperature” of an isotherm to get a value that value is the value of what?
the temperature if the thermomiter? Yes! Some measure of someones wierd kinetic energy? No!
An isotherm by definition must have the ability to supply or dissipate all heat (energy) needed to maintain that temperature. What is the isotherm maintaning? E=Mc^2 isw another scientific monstrosity, It cannot be true (except to indicate some relationship between mass and energy) because c has no real value. c is an asymptote and matematically must be treated as such, just like zero Kelvin.

[b]OK, I see what all the fuss is about. You say science is a mess.[/b] I hope so! It has nothing to do with any individual or any particular concept. I only has to do with folk like yourself and Gary Novack, to use such difficulties mistakenly to prove a particular personel point.

[b]You are angry with momentum, F = mA and Newton; nuclear fusion, E = Mc2 and Einstein; H-bombs, math, science and all scientists.
[/b]
Not at all. Those are all fine concepts when used strictly within yheir scientific limits.

Your “No matter how you look at it, F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere.’ is always a lie, because the statement itself allows,
no interpretation, that there must be a degree of freedom of the mass in the direction of the force, and alleged acceleration.

[b]Since my 40 year engineering career incorporated science and the scientific method, you are upset with me too. [/b]

Not at all, I mearly point out the errors in the writings, here on a blog that claimes to be against “fake” science. Your symbolic correction of Gary Novack’s roller scate and rocket was the worst! Where is the mass of thr rocket fuel and its effect?

[b]You are really mad that I defended science with logic, reason, math, passion and a bit of flair.[/b]

I observe none of the above!

[b]I give up. You win. Your emotional beef is with Newton, not me. You are welcome to be the last man standing in this blog. I withdraw with my victory trophy.[/b]
OK, Happy trails!

• ### Pierre Latour

|

ewiljan: Change your wall push to a pull and the opposite strain force arises within the wall and stationary structure. Study strength of materials and you will learn why cables break and walls come tumbling down. We can even take pictures of stress-strain forces in metals.

Even your own body obeys F = M*A. (Did you catch the significance of my “sit down” suggestion?). It is more than an equation; it is a simple description of how nature works. The language of nature is not English, its mathematics.

I think “firm in his convictions and persuasive in his arguments” would be more accurate and fair, than your inflammatory “Academic arrogance” characterization of my writings. And it would not put people off and strengthen your debating effectiveness.

Besides I am not an academic and I am not as arrogant as you. Engineers work hard to know what they are thinking, saying, writing and doing. Learning from mistakes is useful for avoiding them in the future.

To recap, mv exists. m is measurable; v is measurable; mv is measurable. It is called momentum. Therefore momentum exists. It means something. It is very useful. Law of conservation of momentum is fundamental to fluid mechanics and aerodynamics. Without it engineers could not design airplanes properly.

I cannot find where you or Novak found any errors in what I wrote. That is not arrogance on my part; it is true. I still don’t understand what all the fuss is about. QED.

Lonny Eachus: Thank you. I approve of your message.

• ### ewiljan

|

[b]I cannot find where you or Novak found any errors in what I wrote. That is not arrogance on my part; it is true. I still don’t understand what all the fuss is about. QED.[/b]

[u]The fuss is about “Why science is in such a mess”[/u]

Dr. Novack found no errors in what you wrote,because you wrote nothing about “the Existence of Momentum and H-Bomb”
All you wrote was your personal opinion of the validity of all current science theories, Many that have never been demonstrated. You even gi so far as to insult with “E = Mc2 has been verified to my satisfaction. It is used to describe the evolution of the universe, cosmology, dominated by nuclear reactions.”
It is a theory. Where has E=Mc^2 ever been verified? This again is an example of “Why science is in such a mess”.
AND
“[i]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.[/i”] . Every attempt at uncontrolled nuclear fusion has failed. Yet You insist on valid physics. Why? This again is an example of “Why science is in such a mess”.

• ### ewiljan

|

Dr. Latour,
Since all of PSI is in defence of true science,
Can you define the term “temperature”? What is temperature? Science, not theory, not opinion.
What does “temperature” indicate for an “isotherm”. What does “temperature” indicate for a surface to electromagnetically radiate “power” it does not have? Please define temperature, since science is so wonderful and complete. Arrogance!!!

• ### Sunsettommy

|

Ewiljan,

You show a habit of being insulting against others even when they are civil with you.This MUST STOP or I will take the next step and delete or unpublish your comments that continues these personal attacks.You are free to attack their comments with vigor as long as you provide why you strongly disagree.

• ### ewiljan

|

Ewiljan,

You show a habit of being insulting against others even when they are civil with you.This MUST STOP or I will take the next step and delete or unpublish your comments that continues these personal attacks.You are free to attack their comments with vigor as long as you provide why you strongly disagree.[/quote]

Again what is the official PSI recommended reply To a dedicated warmist who posts “here” intentional falsehoods, nor in this case one of your own founders that does the same?
[b] No matter how you look at it, F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere.[/b]
With vigour I replied:
[u]Bull Shit: Push on a wall with force F.
No acceleration at all, only entropy.[/u]
Thus falsifying his claim. Your own Dr. Latour replied with deliberate misdirection:
[b]Correct. Elementary structural mechanics, from high school physics, [/b]
With this deliberate misdirection Dr. Latour admits his deliberate falsehood in his [b] No matter how you look at it, F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere.[/b]. Such misdirection and deliberate falsehood is a characteristic of Climate Clown blogs.
Why do you allow such here from one of your own?

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

I repeat: misunderstandings happen. You persist in characterizing a misunderstanding as “deliberate misdirection” on the part of others. YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

I have seen that this is a misunderstanding, and I have tried to explain it to you twice now. I strongly suggest that you should take a step back and recognize misunderstandings for what they are, rather than accusing others of dishonesty or lacking integrity.

The fact that the equation says F is equivalent to M*A does not necessarily mean that something physical is accelerating. A photon does not have mass in the normal sense yet it can transfer momentum. So why are you picking on this particular force equation, and calling it dishonest, when it is no MORE “dishonest” or “misdirection” than your equation for momentum?

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Lonny Eachus”]I repeat: misunderstandings happen. You persist in characterizing a misunderstanding as “deliberate misdirection” on the part of others. YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

I have seen that this is a misunderstanding, and I have tried to explain it to you twice now. I strongly suggest that you should take a step back and recognize misunderstandings for what they are, rather than accusing others of dishonesty or lacking integrity.

The fact that the equation says F is equivalent to M*A does not necessarily mean that something physical is accelerating. A photon does not have mass in the normal sense yet it can transfer momentum. So why are you picking on this particular force equation, and calling it dishonest, when it is no MORE “dishonest” or “misdirection” than your equation for momentum?

My equation for momentum? Now that is a misunderstanding. I stated no such equation nor did I insist that such apply in every caqse.

The statement by Dr. Latour was:
“No matter how you look at it, F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere.’
Please explain how that can be misunderstandings on the part of someone with a PHD?
Again my point is “Why science is in such a mess?” This is a good example.

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

I can explain it easily: it isn’t his misunderstanding, it’s yours.

You misunderstood what he meant. He did NOT say “Something is accelerating every time.” What he meant was that MATHEMATICALLY, F = M*A. Every time. And it does, by our very definitions of algebra.

If, using SI units, acceleration is m/s^2, and mass (in kilograms) is multiplied by this acceleration, you get kg*m/s^2.

Every time.

But that does not imply that something physical is macroscopically moving. It only means that the math works.

And it does. Every time.

• ### ewiljan

|

Since PSI will not respond, What in your opinion is the correct response when the whole point is:
“I question the personal integrity of this other person?”

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

I do not have a “correct response”, because under like circumstances, I probably would not have responded at all.

In order for me to respond to someone that I suspected their integrity, I would need to have (A) a solid scientific argument refuting what they say, with evidence to back it up, plus (B) some REASON, again with evidence, to believe they were deliberately misleading people, rather than simply mistaken.

And with that, I am done with this discussion. Take my words to heart or leave them, as you will. But I have said my piece and even repeated myself; I have no further purpose here.

|

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

Well, I *WAS* through here, until you just gave me reason to not be.

Your response hardly seems civil. In case you had not noticed, I am not the only one saying that.

Do you honestly not see a problem with that?

• ### ewiljan

|

Hi Lonny,

[quote name=”Lonny Eachus”]Well, I *WAS* through here, until you just gave me reason to not be. Your response hardly seems civil. In case you had not noticed, I am not the only one saying that.Do you honestly not see a problem with that?[/quote]
Thank you again for your thoughtful observations

I have no desire for my response to be civil,
but only correct, My response,may not even be correct, and I will suffer for that.
I see no benefit in acting civil.
Being nice, is often the opposite of being truthful. Some earthlings can handle that. I cannot!!!

[i]You CAN be correct and reasonably civil at the same time.But you are making it clear that you are going to defy the administrator on it.I am already snipping you and will soon get tired of it and go to the next step.[/i]

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

Well, it is true that being “nice”, as you put it, can be untruthful.

On the other hand, if one does not adopt a civil tone, others have no obligation to listen. Quite the contrary; they may be given to think they have very good reason to NOT listen.

• ### ewiljan

|

Pleasae go to the next step Tommy, I am tired of your PSI holier than thow attitude. I wish not to be civil, to an administration that refuses to define the purpose of the administration.

• ### ewiljan

|

Ewiljan,

You show a habit of being insulting against others even when they are civil with you.This MUST STOP or I will take the next step and delete or unpublish your comments that continues these personal attacks.You are free to attack their comments with vigor as long as you provide why you strongly disagree.[/quote]

PSI needs folk. Folk do not not need PSI!

• ### Sunsettommy

|

Ewiljan,

You show a habit of being insulting against others even when they are civil with you.This MUST STOP or I will take the next step and delete or unpublish your comments that continues these personal attacks.You are free to attack their comments with vigor as long as you provide why you strongly disagree.[/quote]

PSI needs folk. Folk do not not need PSI![/quote]

PSI is aware of this and supports my moderation decisions as I have been applying them to you.

Several times now I have stated that you can attack what they write quite aggressively but be reasonably civil with the person who wrote them,but I have had to spend time snipping and deleting your nasty attacks because you have failed to moderate yourself.

I am always trying to find a balance between maintaining civil decorum and allowing robust debate but YOU have stated clearly you don’t want to be civil and have demanded an official PSI position on how to handle certain people you personally object to strongly when I am already here as an [b]official PSI Administrator[/b] who have been responding to you about several of your complaints with patience.

My suggestion is for you to get back on topic take my moderation suggestions seriously as I have been saying to you several times already and stop the public complaints about my moderating decisions.

PSI supports vigorous but civil debate on the topics presented and will be moderated accordingly to maintain that position.

• ### ewiljan

|

Ewiljan,

You show a habit of being insulting against others even when they are civil with you.This MUST STOP or I will take the next step and delete or unpublish your comments that continues these personal attacks.You are free to attack their comments with vigor as long as you provide why you strongly disagree.[/quote]

PSI needs folk. Folk do not not need PSI![/quote]

PSI is aware of this and supports my moderation decisions as I have been applying them to you.

Several times now I have stated that you can attack what they write quite aggressively but be reasonably civil with the person who wrote them,but I have had to spend time snipping and deleting your nasty attacks because you have failed to moderate yourself.

I am always trying to find a balance between maintaining civil decorum and allowing robust debate but YOU have stated clearly you don’t want to be civil and have demanded an official PSI position on how to handle certain people you personally object to strongly when I am already here as an [b]official PSI Administrator[/b] who have been responding to you about several of your complaints with patience.

My suggestion is for you to get back on topic take my moderation suggestions seriously as I have been saying to you several times already and stop the public complaints about my moderating decisions.

PSI supports vigorous but civil debate on the topics presented and will be moderated accordingly to maintain that position.[/quote]
I have made no complaint of your moderating decisions. I have repeated my question on “What is allowed here?”.

Please explain where any of my coments to Dr. Pierre Latour is any different than the relpy “in the article” to Gary Novack from Dr.latoure “Expressing anger at facts and logical people is a well-known symptom of NPD, narcissist personality disorder.” I believe
“Academic arrogance” is more correct and more
kind. What does one do with a real warmist like Joel Shore?

• ### Greg House

|

Ewiljan,

my impression is that you can behave yourself, but you enjoy being nasty and use every imaginable opportunity to turn a discussion uncivil.

If you were allowed to proceed this way, very soon you would become the only commentator here.

• ### Pierre Latour

|

ewiljan: Correct. Elementary structural mechanics, from high school physics, says as you apply a force to your wall an equal but opposite stress force arises within the wall and stationary structure. True for any type of force: pressure, torque, gravity, magnetic, electric.

You can feel and see that nothing moves: A = 0 = F2 – F1. Even BS obeys F = M*A.

Sit down. Relax. Don’t get all worked up. You just verified Isaac Newton was right. Uncanny. I can feel your emotions from here.

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Pierre Latour”]ewiljan: Correct. Elementary structural mechanics, from high school physics, says as you apply a force to your wall an equal but opposite stress force arises within the wall and stationary structure. True for any type of force: pressure, torque, gravity, magnetic, electric.

You can feel and see that nothing moves: A = 0 = F2 – F1. Even BS obeys F = M*A.

Sit down. Relax. Don’t get all worked up. You just verified Isaac Newton was right. Uncanny. I can feel your emotions from here.[/quote]

So you agree
[b]F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere.[/b]
But only when M is allowed to accelerate
Is that “every time”??
From your writings you seem to be a (SNIPPED the rest of the personal attack)

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

I see that again, this discussion has gone too far.

F = M*A is an [b]equation[/b]. It does [b]not[/b] mean that something physical is always accelerating.

If it did, it would mean that your momentum is also a “fraud”: tell me, where do you get mass for a photon? Yet photons can transfer momentum. It’s all in the equations. (Coupled with observation… we now know, for example, that light pressure can alter the course of long-range space vehicles.)

It is well enough to disagree, and even to argue, but when you start to call names and question the integrity of others, you might want instead to look strongly in a mirror. That is not how science is done.

And then maybe chalk it up to misunderstanding, and back off just a bit.

I am not a moderator here, I’m just making a suggestion. But it’s a strong one. Dr. LaTour is patient, I am perhaps less so. This is supposed to be a discussion of science. I would hate to see it devolve into a pile of name-calling the way other online “science” forums have.

• ### ewiljan

|

Hi Lonny,
My entire point for posting here is to give examples of fake science, or better “Why is science in such a mess”. My own opinion (non-scientific) is that it is caused by “Academic Arrogance”.
This article between Gary Novack and Dr.Pierre Latour, is a perfect example of “Academic Arrogance” on both sides.
From What I see Gary Novack,(with or without the i Dr.) Is a mushroom grower, that thinks his opinion on science is always correct.
Dr. Pierre Latour while quite better educated, more intelligent, and an serious thinker, believes that all he speaks or writes, is defined to be correct. Both are examples of “Academic Arrogance”. Neither is ever willing to admit “I do not know”.
That same “I do not know”, is the only truthful and correct answer to difficult scientific situations.

[b]I see that again, this discussion has gone too far. F = M*A is an equation. It does not mean that something physical is always accelerating.[/b]
Indeed it as only a mathematical expression that has no meaning, until both the meanings, and environment of each of the symbols is evaluated.
Dr. Latour’s [b] F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere[/b] is always wrong, as it allows s no such evaluation. It is “only” an arrogant opinion..
Dr. Latour I weill not do a hatchet job on your writings. You, Lonny, Me all understand what you mean— The actual writing I criticize as, as bad as the Climate Clowns writings, always meant to confuse.

Please both of you I am an old and successful
electro-optics engineer. I only now see the complexity of effective communication, I do not mean “how many bits”.

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

I do understand your point. But this isn’t “Slashdot” or one of those other popular forums.

We can have a civil discussion, and even call people wrong if we want, but true scientific discussion is about ideas, not the people who express them. So personal comments or attacking someone’s integrity is generally unwelcome.

This was my objection above with Mr. Temple’s writing. He entered the discussion with no apparent purpose but to attack the honesty of someone here. It is possible to be in 100% disagreement with someone else, and still be honest, responsible, and sincere.

• ### Pierre Latour

|

ewiljan: Your uncanny ability is probably based on your superior ability to assign empty innuendo to conclude nonexistent inferences. Without realizing it. Some people are very emotional.

No matter how you look at it, F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere. An apple falls. Matter rotates and orbits. C = Pi*D. Density = mass/volume. Heat transfers from hot to cold. Momentum exists. A rose is a rose is a rose. I just don’t see what is so complicated about it.

I will leave you, Novak and Temple to straighten everything out. I shall stick to my humble common sense, logic, reason, math, science, economics, ethics, engineering, history, English language and good humor. They work for me.

• ### ewiljan

|

[b]No matter how you look at it, F = M*A. Every single time; everywhere. [/b]
Bull Shit: Push on a wall with force F.
No acceleration at all, only entropy.

• ### Pierre Latour

|

ewiljan: Thanks for the feelings agreement. Your ability to perform a hatchet job on innocent people is uncanny. Even looking at it sideways.

You say you don’t even know what “new” means? Incoherent? Did I spell your name correctly?

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Pierre Latour”]ewiljan: Thanks for the feelings agreement. Your ability to perform a hatchet job on innocent people is uncanny. Even looking at it sideways.

You say you don’t even know what “new” means? Incoherent? Did I spell your name correctly?[/quote]
No! that was New** = The integral of Energy over time.
I see that you still do not understand what Dr. Gary Novak point was!

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Pierre Latour”]ewiljan. Repetition. Blog stumbles. I feel your pain.[/quote]
Sure you do!!! TO CONTINUE:
back to the end of 1600 and change all of Sir Isaac Newton’s labels to wit:

Label Old label
New** now= Integral of old Energy over time.
Energy now= old Momentum
Power now= old Mass
dP/dt now= derivative of old Mass wrt time Joules per second per second ???
Rate of change.of power exchanged, Weird,
But is the Voltage across an inductor that is changing current. Hummmm!!!
I have no idea of what New** might be!!

[b]This will not be done! We are all truly stuck with the old labels, whatever they may mean. This is not science this is language.[/b]

The idea from Dr. Novack to look at this sideways.(differently) This is important, The kids will always look at everything sideways. Without some help all mistooks most repeat.
Mistooks, mistakes, mistreaks, Aw Shits, then the Hubble, in that order! Go Science!!!

Dr. Novack goes on with energy = Mv referencing his blog with a foolish thought problem involving a rocket engine and a roller skate, with really bad mathematics. He forgets that force without movement is not energy but entropy. What still remains is “Why did ignition not occur?.Is something wrong with E =Mc^2?
[b]From Will: What if it is E = kMc^2, with k a very small fraction, dependent on type of mass, that can in the limit approach 0.5 to be the same as Newtons E = 0.5Mv^2 ?? [/b]

[b]With Dr. Latour’s permission, I hope to do a similar hatchet job on his equally non-scientific First Rebuttal: Fusion Energy[/b]

• ### Pierre Latour

|

ewiljan. Repetition. Blog stumbles. I feel your pain.

• ### ewiljan

|

Dr. Novack wishes to reject all Neuvo Science
(that from 1920 on).
He opens this ?debate? with an article from National Geographic. This article was about a failure to reach certain engineering/physics goals. This at the National Ignition Facility, or NIF, in Livermore, California, This \$3.5 billion Facility Failed to archive am event called “hydrogen ignition” even after “way over budget”. [b]From Will Workers there are not incompetent or stupid and really wanted this thing to work! [/b]
Dr. Novack noted that all success depends on one unproven scientific theory, Einstein’s equation E=Mc^2. What if that is wrong? Can that explain the failure?
If Energy=Mc (momentum) instead, than much less energy is available. If that is the change required, to explain the failure we have to go back to the end of 1600 and change all of Sir Isaac Newton’s labels to wit:

Label Old label
New**

• ### ewiljan

|

Check with me for the rest of my post

• ### Pierre Latour

|

ewiljan: Your ability to discern my feelings, attitudes, beliefs and thoughts from a text message through the internet is uncanny!

In a law court, you would be denied standing and jurisdiction.

I doubt you can reliably discern Novak’s inner feelings and undisclosed plans in his text message either, and I believe he would agree with me.

Nothing wrong with using up to date science, proven since 1687. Best we can do. Helps when you can connect mathematics to nature. It gets easier when you understand stuff and make something out of it that works.

If Novak wants to redo science created since 1600 he is free to try but he has his work cut out for him. If he does it right, eventually he will get to where the rest of us are relaxing now, perhaps. (Just go to school.)

If you are confused, it’s not my fault, it’s your fault. All I can do to help is my best. I am counting on you to take responsibility.

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Pierre Latour”]ewiljan: Your ability to discern my feelings, attitudes, beliefs and thoughts from a text message through the internet is uncanny![/quote]

Dr.Latour, Another good example of what I perceive of why Science is in such a mess.
I know nothing of your attitudes and feelings
except from your writings here and in the recent past My comments here are never about “you” but “only” about your writings and what someone such as I can discern from them. I do the same with the writings of Dr. Novack.
Here is my partial analysis of some of Dr. Novack’s writings in the current article. Please try to fault my “learning”.:

Dr. Novack wishes to reject all Neuvo Science
(that from 1920 on).
He opens this ?debate? with an article from National Geographic. This article was about a failure to reach certain engineering/physics goals. This at the National Ignition Facility, or NIF, in Livermore, California, This \$3.5 billion Facility Failed to archive am event called “hydrogen ignition” even after “way over budget”. [b]From “Will” Workers there are not incompetent or stupid and really wanted this thing to work! [/b]
Dr. Novack noted that all success depends on one unproven scientific theory, Einstein’s equation E=Mc^2. What if that is wrong? Can that explain the failure?
If Energy=Mc (momentum) instead, than much less energy is available. If that is the change required, to explain the failure we have to go back to the end of 1600 and change all of Sir Isaac Newton’s labels to wit:

Label Old label
New**

• ### ewiljan

|

cut in the middle—–
Label Old label
New**

• ### ewiljan

|

Label Old label
New**

• ### ewiljan

|

Dr.Latour, Another good example of what I perceive of why Science is in such a mess.
I know nothing of your attitudes and feelings
except from your writings here and in the recent past My comments here are never about “you” but “only” about your writings and what someone such as I can discern from them. I do the same with the writings of Dr. Novack.
Here is my partial analysis of some of Dr. Novack’s writings in the current article. Please try to fault my “learning”.:

Dr. Novack wishes to reject all Neuvo Science
(that from 1920 on).
He opens this ?debate? with an article from National Geographic. This article was about a failure to reach certain engineering/physics goals. This at the National Ignition Facility, or NIF, in Livermore, California, This \$3.5 billion Facility Failed to archive am event called “hydrogen ignition” even after “way over budget”. From “Will” Workers there are not incompetent or stupid and really wanted this thing to work!
Dr. Novack noted that all success depends on one unproven scientific theory, Einstein’s equation E=Mc^2. What if that is wrong? Can that explain the failure?
If Energy=Mc (momentum) instead, than much less energy is available. If that is the change required, to explain the failure we have to go back to the end of 1600 and change all of Sir Isaac Newton’s labels to wit:

Energy

• ### ewiljan

|

Dr.Latour, Another good example of what I perceive of why Science is in such a mess.
I know nothing of your attitudes and feelings
except from your writings here and in the recent past My comments here are never about “you” but “only” about your writings and what someone such as I can discern from them. I do the same with the writings of Dr. Novack.
Here is my partial analysis of some of Dr. Novack’s writings in the current article. Please try to fault my “learning”.:

Dr. Novack wishes to reject all Neuvo Science
(that from 1920 on).
He opens this ?debate? with an article from National Geographic. This article was about a failure to reach certain engineering/physics goals. This at the National Ignition Facility, or NIF, in Livermore, California, This \$3.5 billion Facility Failed to archive am event called “hydrogen ignition” even after “way over budget”. From “Will” Workers there are not incompetent or stupid and really wanted this thing to work!
Dr. Novack noted that all success depends on one unproven scientific theory, Einstein’s equation E=Mc^2. What if that is wrong? Can that explain the failure?
If Energy=Mc (momentum) instead, than much less energy is available. If that is the change required, to explain the failure we have to go back to the end of 1600 and change all of Sir Isaac Newton’s labels to wit:

Label Old label
New^^

• ### ewiljan

|

Label Old label
New**

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”Pierre Latour”]ewiljan: Your ability to discern my feelings, attitudes, beliefs and thoughts from a text message through the internet is uncanny![/quote]

Disconnect in the middle

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”ewiljan”][quote name=”Pierre Latour”]ewiljan: Your ability to discern my feelings, attitudes, beliefs and thoughts from a text message through the internet is uncanny![/quote]

Label Old label
New**

• ### ewiljan

|

[b]ewiljan: Since I took the time to review Novak’s piece I believe I took sufficient time to study and understand his position first and my review is sufficient evidence. To claim otherwise, repeatedly, is unfair.[/b]

I feel from your review that you did not even try to “understand” the position of Dr. Novack.
Your reply indicates only your belief that Newton And all theory since then “must” be correct. Not for an instant did you consider “Never thought about it that way before”.
This is called consideration of what another is trying to express, where I know, I disagree.
A great way to learn, from others, that have skills other than yours.

[b]I do indeed believe I am correct; I do not publish things I believe to be incorrect. I believe Novak and you believe you are correct.[/b]
I did not claim correctnes I only stated observations (myown) from all the available writings.

[b]To criticize debaters for that is silly because it falsely impugns their integrity. I believe Novak would agree. To criticize me for accepting the latest views of science when I use Newton’s Law of Motion from “Principia”, 1687, is rather trite, don’t you think? [/b]

No I do not!

[b]Looks like scrapping the bottom of an empty barrel. I do accept the latest views of science when they elevate my beliefs to my standard for knowledge, until something better looking comes along. Don’t you? Doesn’t every rational person?[/b]

No I do not, nor does it seem Dr. Novack.
You can elevate your beliefs to any level whatsoever, that does not make you correct.
I disbelieve everything, wherever that is possible, and ideas from knowledgeable folk is welcome. I have not looked sufficiently at your writings to tell, but some here at PSI, love to only confuse others!

• ### Pierre Latour

|

Jeff Temple: How do you know I am the same Pierre Latour you debated in 2009? Do you assume there is only one Pierre Latour in the world today?

I studied the exchanges you referred to and discovered Pierre Latour won handily every step of the way as you resorted to emotion and bogus character assassination. He is an honest debater; you are not.

When a blogger chimes in with a personal attack on a stranger, because he supports Newton’s Law of Motion, with unfounded charges, signifying they are an effort to restart an old personal vendetta against a 2009 debater of the same name, you have an example of another law of nature at work:
“If the truth hurts, you have a problem.”

Corollary: “If you don’t feel or recognize it, or don’t know what to do about it, you have a bigger problem.”

A historic blogging moment to be remembered. Your beef here is with Isaac Newton, not me. Suggest you read his “Principia” first. Momentum exists; energy exists; they are not identical. Relax.

Site editor: I understand why you snipped the inappropriate part of Temple’s blog. I have no objection if you care to return it. I do not engage in censorship, even of bad taste.

ewiljan: Since I took the time to review Novak’s piece I believe I took sufficient time to study and understand his position first and my review is sufficient evidence. To claim otherwise, repeatedly, is unfair.

I do indeed believe I am correct; I do not publish things I believe to be incorrect. I believe Novak and you believe you are correct. To criticize debaters for that is silly because it falsely impugns their integrity. I believe Novak would agree.

To criticize me for accepting the latest views of science when I use Newton’s Law of Motion from “Principia”, 1687, is rather trite, don’t you think? Looks like scrapping the bottom of an empty barrel. I do accept the latest views of science when they elevate my beliefs to my standard for knowledge, until something better looking comes along. Don’t you? Doesn’t every rational person?

Lonny Eachus: Thank you.

• ### Charles Higley

|

THe argument has been made that neutron repulsion reactions contributed to the increased energy of nuclear weapons. It makes sense that, although neutrons are neutrally charged, charge is not evenly distributed in the component quarks. WHen neutrons are crushed together, there will be huge repulsion forces created and thus huge potential energy and reactions.

Novak did screw up his calculations of the velocity change of the 100 kg spacecraft as he left the initial speed in km/hr, calculated the change in speed as m/s, and then added to two together to arrive at the final speed. This changes the final energy change as a result of the force, but it is still a hugely larger energy change than with the roller skate.

So, his argument stands but his calculations are flawed.

It is also interesting that we talk about mass changes in springs under tension versus relaxed as being on the order of parts per billion, which is on par with E = mc. If it was E = mc^2, then such mass changes would be almost impossible to detect, at the one part per quadrillion.

I would not be too quick to judge here.

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

Nothing “quick” about it. Novak is in error. Not just in calculation but his central argument is fundamentally flawed.

His argument, when translated into simple English, is that energy does not really exist because it is not conserved in physical interactions (e.g., mass collisions, rocket propulsion, etc.).

I believe my analogy of zeroes not being conserved is apt; both are mathematical conveniences. Nevertheless, we know that they actually work, via experiment.

From this he makes the further leap that using energy in calculations anywhere is therefore “fake” science. Then he uses flawed calculations to support this flawed argument.

Do not misunderstand me: perhaps there is something, somewhere, to the basic idea that certain formulae involving energy may better characterize the real world if they used momentum instead. I am not dismissing his IDEA out of hand.

But Dr. Novak presents no valid examples, and makes no compelling (or even valid) argument, that would convince us it is so. Therefore his assertion that it represents “fakery” carries even less weight. Or maybe that’s momentum.

• ### ewiljan

|

Dr. Novack wishes to reject all Neuvo Science (that from 1920 on).
Dr. Latour wishes to accept the “latest” advances in science. The interesting point is that neither of the (Dr.s) wish even to consider the viewpoint of the other. They both seem convinced “they” are “correct”.
Both of you, please both try to understand the view of other and try to learn what “is”,[/b]
Upon rereading I am convinced the above is correct. This is not science this is arrogance.
Mr. Eachus, please be not too quick to judge here.
Dr.Novack does make arithmetic mistakes, we all do and generally agree if they are pointed out. Dr.Novack is not a skilled debater here. But his thinking rejects some of the notions, even of Newton. If his contention is that energy is MV why not? that would make power a function of mass alone. Such thinking would
revise all concepts of force, work, acceleration, and the nice concept of potential and kenetic “energy” flipping back and forth. I do question his rocket example
a force acting upon sumthing that does not move, does no work, currently measured as “energy”. But so what? Were Netwons concepts correct?
Dr. Latour, a skilled debater, bases all of his arguement on “theory” proposed after WW1 When the academic theorists were bhusting their ass, trying to explain “Why what the engineers did build works the way it does”? Most of the finer points of their theories have never been demonstrated, only accepted by other theorists!
We now have science as we know it, a mess!

• ### ewiljan

|

Dr. Novack wishes to reject all Neuvo Science (that from 1920 on).
Dr. Latour wishes to accept the “latest” advances in science. The interesting point is that neither of the (Dr.s) wish even to consider the viewpoint of the other. They both seem convinced “they” are “correct”.
Both of you, please both try to understand the view of other and try to learn what “is”,[/b]
Upon rereading I am convinced the above is correct. This is not science this is arrogance.
Mr. Higley, I agree,I would not be too quick to judge here.
Dr.novack does make arithmetic mistakes, we all do and generally agree if they are pointed out. But his thinking rejects som of the notions, even of Newton. If his contention is that energy is MV why not? that would make power a function of mass alone. Such thinking
revised all concepts of force, work, acceleration, and the nice concept of potential and kenetic “energy” flipping back and forth. I do question his rocket example
a force acting upon sumthing that does not move, does no work, currently measured as “energy”. But so what? Were Netwons concepts correct?
Dr. Latour bases all of his arguement on “theory” proposed after WW1 When the academic
theorists were bhusting their ass, trying to explain “Why what the engineers did build works the way it does”? Most of the finer points of their theories have never been demonstrated, only accepted by other theorists!
We now have science as we know it, a mess!

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

I did not intend to dominate the comments here but I just thought of another, perhaps better, [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i].

Using Novak’s logic, since the Zero is purely a mathematical construct, intended to express an idea, and does not exist as an independently observable, measurable, physical entity, then it must not exist.

In fact, if we accept Dr. Novak’s logic, it must then be “fake”. The zero is a fraud. You can easily tell because zeroes are not conserved when performing algebra.

Unfortunately, this negates all of Novak’s other arguments, because his math no longer works.

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

It seems to me that this is very simple. Dr. Novak claims (although he is terrible at explaining his own concept) that because energy is not conserved, then it must not exist.

This is the essence of his roller-skate argument.

Yet he ignores the fact that energy is [b]defined[/b] in such a way that it is not conserved. It is expressed as a mathematical relationship between mass and velocity, just as is his precious momentum. It is a mathematical construct which simplifies our understanding of relationships between observable entities and events.

Calling something “fake” simply because it is a mathematical construct which is not physically conserved is ridiculous. One might as well say that photons are “fake” because they are not “conserved”… they are readily absorbed and converted to other forms of energy.

It would be interesting to find out, just for laughs, how Dr. Novak explains heat and its transfer via radiation. The only way a photon can have “momentum” at all (having no rest mass) is via

p = m0*v/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2)

which is a mathematical construct [b]derived[/b] from — you guessed it — a photon’s energy.

• ### Jeffery Temple

|

I have come across Dr Latour previously.He is not an honest debater…….

(I snipped the rest of your comment because it is completely off topic and a personal attack on a off topic matter.Dr Latour has not posted a comment here yet, thus your comment against him personally is in bad taste that had to be cut out.)

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

Irrelevant.

While you may have reason to dislike LaTour, and your reasons may even be legitimate (I don’t know one way or the other), the issue on THIS page is who is CORRECT. The issue is not their personalities, or what they have done in the past.

If you have an argument on THIS topic, please make it.

• ### Lonny Eachus

|

I have no intention of reading the rest. While some of your comments about LaTour having misunderstood your points may be correct, I can see quite easily and clearly that you are at least as guilty of not understanding his.

Just for example, he offers a graph showing a leveling of temperatures since 2000 (which we now KNOW to be correct). You counter by complaining that it was not one of your own references, and that the important thing was the past trend, not the current one.

Yet the current one has been lasting for quite some years… arguably long enough to be counted as a trend in itself. Certainly longer than the IPCC “alarmists” claimed, a few years ago, that a trend had to last to be counted. Now that it has, they complain “No, it must be much longer to be called a trend!” How typical.

Sorry for the digression. But I see that passages could be called “misunderstandings” on both sides. Call them mutual if you like. But using those exchanges to charge LaTour with dishonesty is, in my opinion, dishonest. Or at least misguided.

• ### Joseph A Olson

|

Gary

with all due respect….the “Physics” of the energy equation have been proven repeatedly in every ballistics test ever done. The energy amplification of an in progress fission reaction by the addition of fusion material is also well established using the Teller-Ulam Law. A brief history is http://ehow.com/about_5385062_history-hydrogen-bomb.html

Scientists added a Lithium Deutride jacket to the initial fission device. The Lithium quickly decayed by fission, adding “elemental” Hydrogen to the exploding energy. These concentrated H2 atoms then fused to produce Helium atoms, which along with a 30% increase in total energy were both measured at test sites, including the first aircraft deliverable bomb at Bikini Island. Your inability to do through research is no proof of accuracy for your claims.

BTW…the corrupt FRD administration was completely infiltrated by Soviet NKVD [later called KGB] and communist factions within our government FORCED the US to provide refined Uranium to Russia during the war. Project Manhattan leader Robert Oppenheimer was a communist and provided the necessary technical information. This is proven in released KGB files, documented in “Target Patton” by Robert Wilcox on the OSS [later called CIA] assassination of anti-communist General George Patton.

If you are going to speculate on mushroom clouds, with no research of the proven Physics, then you will be publicly discredited. Your present level mushroom research is inadequate to extrapolate to the known Hydrogen fusion effects.

• ### gnovak79

|

The Point of the Argument.

The point of the argument above seems to be unclear due to the muddled mix of messages. Here’s the basis of the argument. I said this on my web site on the misdefinition of energy here ( http://nov79.com/en/ener.html ):

“Here’s the problem: If a small rocket engine adds 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 rocket engine adds a one pound force for one second to a roller-skate, a lot less energy is added. Same transformation; different energy. With the corrected definition of energy, the same amount of energy is added in both cases.”

Pierre Latour said I was wrong about the spacecraft having more energy than the roller skate. So I added numbers to the statement. The numbers show that the spacecraft has 72,000 times as much ½mv² as the roller skate (after correcting from 216,000 times as much).

Gary Novak
http://www.nov79.com

• ### gnovak79

|

ewiljan:

You claim science is a form of sociology. Science is supposed to be about objective reality with no evidence of subjectivity existing. Arguments create subjective concerns, but they are not part of the science and not something to be promoted.

—————————

Pichampness:

Maybe you can’t read. The argument has been the truth of my claim that a small force was added to a rocket moving at 25,000 miles per hour and added more ½mv² than to a roller skate. This is stated at the top of my web site on energy, which is why Latour created the argument.

The only relevant point to the above arguments is the fact that there is 72,000 times as much ½mv² added to the space craft as to the roller skate. I initially forgot to convert kilometers per hour into meters per second, which resulted in 216,000 times as much rather than 72,000 times as much.

That much difference is hard to miss, which is why I did not add numbers to the statement on my web site.

I have a masters degree, not a Ph.D. degree, as indicated on my web site. Why so much sanctimonous fraud if you are not going to look at the source.

Gary Novak
http://www.nov79.com

• ### ewiljan

|

[b]ewiljan:
You claim science is a form of sociology. Science is supposed to be about objective reality with no evidence of subjectivity existing. Arguments create subjective concerns, but they are not part of the science and not something to be promoted.[/b]

Huh? I claimed nothing. I observed two opinionated individuals that refuse to listen to each other. -will-

• ### gnovak79

|

.
ewiljan:

Above, you siad: “Both of you, please both try to understand the view of the other…The deputy…” That’s sociology. You never mentioned any specific science to be considered. That makes it sociology, not science.

Gary Novak
http://www.nov79.com

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”gnovak79″].
ewiljan:

Above, you siad: “Both of you, please both try to understand the view of the other…The deputy…” That’s sociology. You never mentioned any specific science to be considered. That makes it sociology, not science.
Not at all, Earthlings only “learn” from their own mistakes (painful) or by understanding the mistakes of other earthlings (not so painful). All is very individual not at all social. You Gary have learned much in your life, and have much wisdom to pass on! Dr. Latour seems to get all his knowlege From the writings of others. OK that is nice maybe!
Others can think!!!
From the stuff of others why not learn.
-will-

• ### ewiljan

|

[quote name=”gnovak79″].
ewiljan:

Above, you siad: “Both of you, please both try to understand the view of the other…The deputy…” That’s sociology. You never mentioned any specific science to be considered. That makes it sociology, not science.

Gary Novak
http://www.nov79.com[/quote%5D

Do you have a PHD? From where that we can chek? How are the mushrooms doing?

• ### Plchampness

|

KE=1/2mv^2 works well for conversion of Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy. It also works well for impact energy calculations.
Let us therefore assume that KE=1/2mv^2 is correct.

Now let’s look at Gary’s rocket engine on a roller skate vs the fast moving roket in space example. Actually we can just consider the same rocket at launch, when it is moving slowly, and later on when it has picked up speed. As Gary says; the engine is burning fuel at constant rate, yet at launch it delivers very little KE to the rocket. Later, when it has reached a speed of 1000km/hr the same amount of fuel converts into a lot of KE. Does that mean that the rocket is creating free energy when it gets to high speed?

No unfortunately. The efficiency of the rocket engine is very low at low speed. As the speed increases the efficiency increases. Maximum efficiency,is reached when the speed of the rocket is the same as its exhaust. The speed of the rocket exhaust is very fast, (I have estimated 40,000km/hr). So when the rocket teaches orbital speed it is still well below peak efficiency.

There is no need to discard all of mechanics because of the rocket paradox!

Peter Champness

• ### ewiljan

|

Indeed and thank you! Peter,
Dr.Gary Novack Has a different viewpoint neither correct or incorrect. If Mv is energy than (M) is power. This is both true and incorect depending on a very personal POV. None of this has anything to do with “Science” Only with Philosophy, and Mathematics. Please for all of us, define the word “Science”?
AFAIK all are trying tom sell their “Snake oil”

• ### ewiljan

|

[b] I also wish to thank Dr. Novak and Dr. Latour for opening up their lively discussion to public debate.[/b]
I must re-read “all this article” three or more times to get to what is the real issue.
of why science, is such a mess today.
Dr. Novack wishes to reject all Neuvo Science
(that from 1920 on).
Dr. Latour wishes to accept the “latest” advances in science.
The interesting point is that neither of the (Dr.s) wish even to consider the viewpoint of the other. They both seem convinced “they” are “correct”.
Both of you, please both try to understand the view of other and try to learn what “is”,
When the deputy stops you for ?? and you say “I want a lawyer”. The deputy beats the shit out of you,throws you in jail fo 48 hours, until some dronk Judge sets bail.
All you can say to yourself is “no one ever explained it to me that way before”. Next time you say “Yes officer”. This is called learning, something not taught in Universities.