Potential Energy is Fake Science
Potential energy was created to explain the increase in kinetic energy of falling objects. Its creation was not the result of observation but from the need to adapt reality to conform to the theory of gravity.
With the adoption of a concept of energy and that energy could not be created or destroyed something was needed to explain how an object could increase in energy without another object losing or transferring energy to it.
If energy is indestructible then it cannot just disappear so there must be some physical form of this potential energy. Einstein’s theory of mass and energy being different forms of the same thing (E=mc^2) provided an excuse for the storage of the energy as potential energy. The mass of an object varied depending on the amount of potential energy it contained even though this solution poses more questions than it answers.
What is the mechanism that allows matter to gradually convert to energy and energy to gradually change to matter?
What is the reference point for the potential energy?
An asteroid can strike any of the planets or moons. Does its mass contain potential energy for all its possible collisions and what happens to this mass when the asteroid hit one object?
As its mass increases from potential energy doesn’t the force of gravity between it and the other object also increase thereby increasing the potential energy?
If the potential energy gradually increases with increasing distance doesn’t that mean that mass must gradually increase and there can’t be discrete units of mass?
If matter is an analog system how many units of energy (photons) are needed to create an electron and are there partial electron charges?
If energy is creating mass how are the opposite electrical charges being created?
There is no evidence to support potential energy and in fact the evidence contradicts it.
If a gas molecule descending in the atmosphere gains kinetic energy from the conversion of potential energy, how can the same molecule, when descending in the thermosphere or stratosphere, be losing kinetic energy (cooling) and potential energy simultaneously without violating the conservation of energy?
Do we now need to invent “dark” potential energy with magical powers to go along with “dark” matter and “dark” energy in order to preserve the theory that gravity is a function of mass?
Mass or matter creates inertia. Energy creates motion. Gravity is a function of energy, not mass, where objects do not travel in straight lines but equalize with the energy field around them. Objects with less energy move into higher energy fields (move closer) gaining energy while objects with more energy move into weaker fields losing energy.
A massive meteor in equilibrium with the sun’s energy field is destroyed when entering the Earth’s energy field, not because of the scarce oxygen atoms it encounters in the high atmosphere, but because it sheds particles and kinetic energy in order to equalize with the Earth’s energy field.
The gas molecules in the atmosphere rise and expand because as they gain energy from the sun they move into a weaker Earth’s energy field trying to lose that energy and equalize with the field. At night they contract they try to re-establish equilibrium with the Earth’s energy field as they radiate energy into space.
The data used by Sir Isaac Newton to develop his theory of gravity was Kepler’s law, distance of a planet from the sun times the planet’s velocity squared is the same for all the planets, contained no mass. It states that the planets equalize with the energy coming from the sun.
Newton invented the gravitational constant creating mass as a source for gravity because the concept of energy as a thing had not been developed. It is time for physics to abandon the never ending creation of excuses trying to rectify this mistake and discard the potential energy, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and other nonsense and return to reality.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Potential energy is exactly what it says it is,….potential. It has not yet been realised but we have to recognise this abstraction because it tells us what the energy of a system will be after an action has taken place.
Potential energy is not a physical reality. It is simply the energy that a system can attain after an action. There IS this amount of real, physical energy there in the first place though. For gravitational potential, this real, physical energy is the energy of the gravitational field that is transferred to the falling object. The kinetic energy of the falling object is increased by its fall and the gravitational energy of the field is decreased by the same amount. (gravitational energy is negative). The gain in KE of the falling object equals the gain gravitational energy of the field around the large mass.
OK, so PE is not real, in that it is NOT YET in action, but it’s a useful tool in calculating the energy of a system. So, don’t knock it.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
I made is a simple approximation in the above explanation so let me give you a more exhaustive explanation –
There are two bodies with their own separate energies, the large mass creating the gravitational field and the small mass falling into the field. I’ll give it to you in stages.
With small mass at great distance “outside” the field. (yes I know but don’t bug me over that please!) In this case the total energy of the system is the combined static mass energy of both bodies plus their static time dilation fields which are equal and negative to the mass energies.
As the small mass falls in, the energy of the system is the sum of the masses at rest, plus the gravitational time dilation of both masses at rest, plus the increase in kinetic energy of the smaller mass, plus the increase in time dilation of the smaller mass due to its speed (inertial time dilation).
After the small mass has impacted, the system energy includes the energy of impact of the smaller mass (i.e. sound, heat, light and destruction etc), so the whole system always retains the kinetic energy on impact of the smaller mass in one form or another. Total combined system energy consists of – The rest mass of both bodies, plus time dilation of both masses at rest, plus the kinetic energy of the impact object, plus inertial time dilation of the falling object on impact.
If you want it in general mathematical form it is;-
E(total) = Mc^2 + mc^2 – E (delta t(M)) – E (delta t(m)) + 1/2mv^2 – E(delta t(mv^2)) = 0
You might notice that the energy of any system, and that means the whole universe, equals the sum total of fuck all !
Who says we need to create energy to get a universe?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
Sounds more like accounting than physics.
Herb
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
But that is exactly what you have to do to analyse energy balance,….account for it in all its forms. My feeling is you are uncomfortable with the notion of PE as am I, but you have failed to think clearly about why. I have shown in my response the nature of PE and why it is useful. Ignore it if you please but I cannot explain it any clearer.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
If you ask a scientist what 1 + 1 is he will say 2. If you ask an accountant what 1 + 1 is his reply is”What do you want it to be?”
If you use energy as the cause of gravity and objects equalize with that energy you don’t need potential energy, the sun doesn’t have a different force for every object in the solar system and just radiates a constant decreasing force that objects adjust their energy (velocity squared) to.
It is far simpler to say that gravity (and magnetism) are the radiated fields from the attractive force (to protons) that holds the nucleus of an atom together by compression rather than a blinding force. These fields add to.produce the attraction between objects.
Herb
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
It is impossible to have mass that is not itself composed of particles that have charges. Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks and then there are the attendant electrons. Mass and charge are inseparable.
As the electromagnetic force is 10^34 times stronger than gravitational force, it seems odd to completely ignore this mammoth big brother and pretend that everything is neutral and can be ignored
We know all about van der Walls forces or interactions, the weak, largely electronic coordination between atoms and molecules that creates very real effects, as in the hydrocarbon chains of phospholipids collectively allowing biological membranes to exist.
So, why could gravity not be a large-scale, long-distance van der Walls effect between objects, being only 1 part in 10^34 of the EM force. Electrons alone could easily produce such an effect.
Until they show that EM is not involved in gravity, it violates Occam’s Razor to create gravity as a 4th force.
Potential energy is still a problem, as it goes to zero ate great distances. Can you add up the gravitational PE’s of an asteroid relative to every other object in the solar system?
I have seriously problems with two spacecraft, one starting from rest and the other already traveling at speed. If identical rockets are then ignited on each spacecraft, the changes in momentum are identical, but the changes in kinetic energy do not match, with the rocket on the faster spacecraft delivering more KE than the other. It is not right and I do not know what I am missing.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Charles, you raise an interesting point.
“As the electromagnetic force is 10^34 times stronger than gravitational force.”
My reading of the situation is:
“the gravitational force between an electron and proton one meter apart is approximately 10^-67 newton, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles still I metre apart is approximately 10^-28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1039) greater than the force of gravity”. So power 39 times stronger, not 34?
Using this information and applying the inverse square law, we can calculate that the gravitational force capable of separating an electron from its proton would have to increase over a distance from Earth of 3,343 light years.
This presumably would happen at a BH site, and indicates that a quantum theory of gravity could involve electrons, protons, and BHs?
It is interesting to note that the nearest large BH to Earth is V616 Monoceros, some 3300 light years away. This opens up several avenues for investigation.
See https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PROM/PROM-Beatty-Gravispheres.pdf
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
There are two fundamental directions: Horizontal and Vertical. To move a body horizontally one has to exert a horizontal force to over come its inertia to not move. Once you begin moving it you have increased its kinetic energy but not it potential energy.
To lift a body vertically one has to exert a vertical lifting force on the body and then continue to hold the body stationary at the vertical distance that you have vertically lifted (which clearly constituted that which we call work). But to hold the lifted body stationary we must continue to do work. As soon one would grow weary holding a ‘heavy’ lifted body stationary above the place from where one had lifted it vertically. This because if one stopped lifting, the lifted body would immediately ‘fall’ back to the place from which it was lifted.
To hold the vertically lifted body up, one must continually exert a ‘force’ to hold it stationary. And clearly there is a force continually ‘pulling’ the lifted body back to the point from where it had been vertically lifted. We have chosen to term the force pulling the lifted body downward to be ‘gravity’. And we do not change this ‘gravity’ by lifting the body vertically.
Ponder these experiences which you can experience if you do some work.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
philf
| #
google: unikef (book by McCoin) is one idea. Einstein gravity has been tested but has no underlying theory of mass which may or not matter.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Once again P-S is turning itself into P-U by showcasing crackpots who don’t even know the first thing about physics but pose themselves as new Einsteins. Last time he didn’t know the difference between a radiative black body and a black hole, and when I showed him a quote from Wiki exposing him he responded by questioning the veracity of Wiki, which being crowd sourced has a high reputation for non-political subjects like science and history even though leftists have hijacked all political articles, esp. the climate articles for leftist U.N. IPCC agitprop.
When will P-S repudiate and delete all of this crackpot’s work (or relegate it to the comments section) and publish retractions to stop the inevitable storm of ridicule comparing its editors’ brains to the size of a pea rattling around in a rattle? We want to challenge the U.N. IPCC position on CO2-driven global warming by exposing their perversion of science, not pervert it ourselves and stamp the word DUMB— on our own foreheads.
While holding my nose and typing with one hand, I’ll examine some of the crackpot statements of our P-S Crackpot, hopefully for the last time.
[[Potential energy was created to explain the increase in kinetic energy of falling objects. Its creation was not the result of observation but from the need to adapt reality to conform to the theory of gravity.
[[With the adoption of a concept of energy and that energy could not be created or destroyed something was needed to explain how an object could increase in energy without another object losing or transferring energy to it.
[[If energy is indestructible then it cannot just disappear so there must be some physical form of this potential energy. Einstein’s theory of mass and energy being different forms of the same thing (E=mc^2) provided an excuse for the storage of the energy as potential energy. The mass of an object varied depending on the amount of potential energy it contained even though this solution poses more questions than it answers.]]
Peee-yuuu! Potential energy was invented for springs, then extended to gravity and other forces that are conservative, meaning forces that act on a body in a way that the total work done by these forces on the body depends only on the initial and final positions of the body in the force field. All forms of potential energy require a force field. No force field, no potential energy. Einstein’s equation has nothing to do with it. Our CP in point doesn’t seem to understand that.
I quote Wiki, which is written by physics experts not crackpots: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
“In physics, potential energy is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors.”
“There are various types of potential energy, each associated with a particular type of force. For example, the work of an elastic force is called elastic potential energy; work of the gravitational force is called gravitational potential energy; work of the Coulomb force is called electric potential energy; work of the strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force acting on the baryon charge is called nuclear potential energy; work of intermolecular forces is called intermolecular potential energy. Chemical potential energy, such as the energy stored in fossil fuels, is the work of the Coulomb force during rearrangement of configurations of electrons and nuclei in atoms and molecules. Thermal energy usually has two components: the kinetic energy of random motions of particles and the potential energy of their configuration.”
“Potential energy is often associated with restoring forces such as a spring or the force of gravity. The action of stretching a spring or lifting a mass is performed by an external force that works against the force field of the potential. This work is stored in the force field, which is said to be stored as potential energy. If the external force is removed the force field acts on the body to perform the work as it moves the body back to the initial position, reducing the stretch of the spring or causing a body to fall.”
Like all crackpots, our CP can’t go two paragraphs without comparing himself to Einstein and bringing up his E=mc^2 equation only to expose how he totally fails to understand it:
[[What is the mechanism that allows matter to gradually convert to energy and energy to gradually change to matter?]]
Zonk! Einstein’s E = mc^2 equation states only that energy and mass are the same thing, but says nothing about how to change one into another. Einstein’s equation has nothing to do with potential energy, which is about converting work to energy and vice-versa in a force field, not converting mass to energy.
Quoting Wiki: ” The work done by a conservative force is
W = − Δ U {\displaystyle \,W=-\Delta U} \,W = -\Delta U
where Δ U {\displaystyle \Delta U} \Delta U is the change in the potential energy associated with the force. The negative sign provides the convention that work done against a force field increases potential energy, while work done by the force field decreases potential energy. ”
Once again the Crackpot pretends to be deep while actually being clueless:
[[What is the reference point for the potential energy?]]
Duh, since we’re talking about a force field, potential energy is a difference between the starting and ending points, hence it has no preferred reference point, and one can be selected for convenience. I quote Wiki again: “The more formal definition is that potential energy is the energy difference between the energy of an object in a given position and its energy at a reference position.”
Confusing the universal concept of potential energy with E=mc^2 would even er, crack Einstein up.
I hope P-S wakes up and gets back on track, else it has degenerated into little more than an amateurish blog that welcomes crackpots and where anything goes, a Crackpot Readers Digest. What happened to atmospheric science? Not that a crackpot blog wouldn’t be more popular in this zany Internet world 🙂
Seriously, I encourage readers to roll up their sleeves and start studying my powerful New Real Climate Science Course to load their minds with the real scientific ammo to take on the IPCC octopus and its pseudoscience lies.
http://www.historyscoper.com/newrealclimatesciencecourse.html
Reply
geran
| #
TL, I know seeing stuff like this frustrates you. But, please don’t blame PSI. PSI is the best forum for science on the Internet. Someone presents a “paper” and we get to “peer-review” it. You appear to be calling for the censorship of Herb. Censorship is not science. Showing Herb where his is wrong, as you did, is science.
Reply
Matt
| #
Geran. All your comments on this paper are very important. It is easy to be too busy for some of us too see clarity. Thank you.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi TLW,
I’m puzzled by your scorn of PSI for publishing so called “C-P contributions,” that is, after visiting the home page of ‘historyscoper.com’ — I thought You use the same ‘Schweik’s Principle’ = giving up ‘seriousness,’ to a degree, to achieve indemnity (of a degree;-)
As for the Ep — I think the Bernoulli’s principle would help with the mentioned gas misdeed…
Cheers,
JaKo
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, part of your problem is that you don’t organize your thoughts. This post is just another example of you throwing things against the wall, hoping something will stick. Your title is “Potential Energy is Fake Science”, but your very first paragraph contains inaccuracies, distortions, and your biased opinions:
“Potential energy was created to explain the increase in kinetic energy of falling objects. Its creation was not the result of observation but from the need to adapt reality to conform to the theory of gravity.”
Your very first paragraph is “fake science”!
There have been many thousands of observations demonstrating “potential energy”. If you believe potentiall energy is “fake”, prove it by having someone drop an 200# anvil on your head from a high building.
I have seen you say some really smart things, so you are no dummy. Organize your thoughts better so as not to appear stupid. Then support your thoughts with verifiable evidence.
Or, if you just want to publicize some of your confusion, just title it as “What’s Wrong With My Thinking?”, or “Please Help Me to Understand Physics”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran,
I consider fake science as being when reality is altered to conform to theory. Gas molecules descending in the stratosphere are losing both potential energy and kinetic energy. Explain.
It is the things that do not conform to theory that point to advances in science, like the wanderers (planets) that led to heliocentric solar system.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, I’m glad you mentioned “reality”. The reality is you don’t know that gas molecules in the stratosphere are violating the laws of physics. You’re just confused.
You do know what an anvil is, right? Anvils, tall buildings, and potential energy becoming kinetic energy are all reality. Easily observed….
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran,
I am not disputing the behavior of gravity but the source of gravity.
Compare the different attributes of gravity being as a result of Newton’s formula using mass and it coming from energy using Kepler’s law and ask yourself which is more in line with Ocaam’s razor.
1) With mass there is a different force for every object in the solar system (or Earth system) vs a continuous force from energy. With mass there is different forces between the Earth and the sun and between the moon and the sun even though both the Earth and the moon are the same distance from the sun. With a radiated gravity/energy field the moon is in the Earth’s energy field and it is the combined Earth-moon unit that equalizes with the sun’s energy field.. With mass the force between the sun and moon is 60% greater than the force between the Earth and the moon yet the moon has remained in orbit around the Earth for billions of years.
2. With mass in order to alter the path of an object you must do work and expend energy. In an energy field an object will follow a circular path, where it is in equilibrium, without any change in energy.
3. With mass you must create hidden potential energy to account for energy changes in the altitude of an object. With an energy field the change in energy results from an equalization of the object with the field.
4. With mass the force does not have a source. 100 % and 0 % of the force comes from both objects which means Mercury can orbit close to the sun without being affected by the large attraction between the sun and Jupiter. With energy field there is one source which decreases with distance that affects everything in the field.
If I could lift an anvil over my head I’d also be able to run so fast that when I released it it wouldn’t fall but remain suspended over my head just as a satellite in a geo-stable orbit remains stationary over the equator without falling.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, I have no idea where all that is coming from. The title of your post is “Potential Energy is Fake Science”. Now you seem to be comparing “gravity” with “energy”? It’s hard to follow you logically, and that’s one of your problems. The reader has to guess at what you’re trying to say.
Kepler’s Laws are not in opposition to gravity. Kepler’s Laws are about orbits and orbital motion. Gravity is included in the mix. Without gravity, you don’t have orbits.
You are correct that an anvil would go into orbit if it had the correct velocity. The anvil would then have two forces acting on it. One force due to gravity, and one force due to its velocity. Take either force away, and the orbit goes away.
Charlie
| #
I don’t post here very often, mostly I just read, and a lot of things are not in areas I know about in detail enough to comment. On the topic of Potential Energy though I do, so, I am really really confused as to this discussion. Others here have also commented correctly that PE is real; it’s measurable, visible, and experience-able. The discussions that somehow PE isn’t real, to gas molecules descending lose both kinetic and potential energy being problematic, are a real head scratcher. I don’t understand how those are questionable when the answers are well documented, and have held up under all circumstances. (OK, I didn’t mean not to question science, what I mean is, question is, then do the work to confirm or deny it, and for PE it has never, ever been denied. I don’t like the term “settled science” but PE and KE are about as settled as it comes!). It seems this revolves around the principle of conservation of energy, and suggesting it….isn’t? There has never been a case where it has not been (even on the QM scale). As another person expressed here, PE for holding a ball and dropping then repeat, is just that: Converting KE to PE and back and again. No net energy change. In fact PE is the easiest of all energy forms to understand, the formula simply PE = gmh; g,m,h having the usual meanings. As for the gas molecules example, the PE decreases, the KE decreases (I presume you mean it’s directional velocity is reduced?, and that energy has to go into something else. Has to. It cannot just disappear. In this case it can go into heat (internal energy) or sound (actually a form of KE), energy. You didn’t point to the reference where the statement is worked through showing PE and KE both decrease – could you? I am really really wondering why the idea of PE being fake science can even exist. All the examples given here do not prove it, and it will never be proven fake because…it isn’t. There is no experiment that will show it doesn’t exist. Energy and momentum are conserved. Always. Herb, pull off the shelf your college physics and thermodynamics text books, it’ll talk about that there. Meanwhile I remain confused as to why anyone would state such a thing. ps And the comment about an accountant stating 1+1 can be what you want it to be? No, that’s not true either, accountant are financial pedantics; if the books don’t balance there is either something wrong or fraud involved. In either event, once it’s discovered, 1+1=2. Always. It’s similar though, accountancy is (albeit simplified of course) balancing: debits on the left, credits on the right, debits = credits. It all needs to balance. As does the physics. Now I have 2 head scratchers; how can one state PE is fake, and that accountants don’t balance the books. pps The answer to the 2-rockets example works out also, but I didn’t see someone take the time to show that here. Shouldn’t have to though. It’s easy.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Charles,
You stated: “It is not right and I do not know what I am missing.”
You do not consider that when a second rocket is fired from the first rocket and that there is an equal opposite reaction which decreases the velocity of the first rocket. Or maybe it would be better if I stated: A rocket is accelerated by the matter being ejected by an ‘explosion of directed gas’.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Regular PSI readers will have noted by now that while Herb’s articles do receive some stinging comments they also bring discussion in a welcome spirit of open scientific debate.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi John O’,
Yes, Herb’s effort do generate more comments than most postings. But SCIENCE is not established by debate. SCIENCE is totally based upon observations. We overlook the fact that Einstein began with a simple observation problem of two scientists observing the same experiment from two different points of reference and obviously, because of these relative different points of reference anyone should be able to ‘see’ they would not have seen the same thing as a body was dropped on an uniformly moving flatcar. And based on the assumption that the speed of light (how we see) is constant Einstein discovered the simple result that E=mc^2. Which have been verified by several different observations (measurements).
But you are correct that my essays about observed data do not generate many comments because generating good data is boring stuff and reproducible data is boring stuff because there is nothing to debate..
And I find no evidence that anyone beside myself that no one at PSI continues to Follow MOSAiC (https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org/) as I make comments from time to time about it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
SCIENCE is totally based upon observations.
James:
Bad science is based on observation. Good science is based on experimentation. Jerry, your methods are a recipe for confirmation bias. This is the reason you are such a poor scientists.
When Everybody is Pretending to Understand
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/When-Everybody-is-Pretending-to-Understand-eeifp7
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi John O’,
And it is difficult for me to become part of the discussion when most of my comments are placed in moderation and appear much later and maybe are never listed as a recent comment,.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply