When someone says the Work Energy
Theorem is **the** theorem that describes mechanical energy because momentum cannot,
he is both correct and scientifically wrong. He is correct to the degree momentum cannot
describe mechanical energy but, he is wrong to say this is proof for the kinetic energy formula.
This is because momentum's inability to represent mechanical
energy does not rise to the standard of proof demanded by the Scientific Method.

Historically, there were only two options considered
when the original question was raised. One was
the product of mass and velocity (*m*** v**), aka,
momentum. The other was the product of mass and the square of velocity (

Since the scientists of the past saw fit to improve the original winner of the mechanical energy sweepstakes, it is only proper to upgrade its one time and inept challenger by removing its directional component. Therefore, this website offers a new hypothesis to replace the one Newton offered to challenge how mechanical energy is quantified mathematically.

**Please note**; an experiment is done in
academia, "The Academic Experiment", that
is believed to confirm the Work Energy Theorem. It is, to say the
least, an extremely impressive experiment but, it contains an unseen flaw.
Go there to see just how poor physics has been taught for so many years.

**A New Hypothesis**

In formal terms, it is proposed that the product of mass and speed might be a better description of the energy a moving mass has because it is moving. Mathematically, this new hypothesis is given provisionally as shown here. It is only offered in this simple manner so as to provide a point from which to challenge the current understanding of the Work Energy Theorem.

*ft = *
Δ *ms*

where,

*f* is the applied force that acts in the
direction that an object moves; *f *represents the magnitude of force and
is given in newtons

*t *is the time force acts and is given in
seconds

*m* is the mass of the object given in kilograms

*s* is the speed of the object and is given in
meters per second

Δ is the symbol used to denote "change in"

**Prediction**

This New Hypothesis carries with it a prediction which is different from the one given by the Work Energy Theorem. Specifically, a linear relationship exists between an object's speed and other forms of energy.

**The s'Gravesande Experiment **

Historically, the only experiment done before scientists elevated Leibniz’s hypothesis to an accepted theory was the s’Gravesande Experiment. It was performed by Du Châtelet and she failed to account for half the experimental data. This begs a couple of questions about what occurs when this experiment is examined using ALL the data. Does this experiment decide the issue? Does it still support the Work Energy Hypothesis?

An
s’Gravesande __type__
experiment is any one in which a moving object slows down at a uniform rate.
Du Châtelet used a soft clay bed and dropped
metal spheres from only a few meters into it.
The spheres decelerated so quickly she was
unable to see that time was a variable.
Had she used a different version of the
s’Gravesande Experiment, she might have noticed time for the variable it is.
Imagine rolling a golf ball onto a perfectly
flat putting green at various speeds.
When a relatively fast ball enters, it travels
a fairly long distance before stopping and it becomes obvious that time passes.
A ball that begins at a slower speed travels a
far
shorter distance and noticeably stops more quickly.

The premise behind the
original s’Gravesande Experiment, or any version thereof, is that as an object
slows down, it loses the energy associated with motion.
And if energy is removed at a uniform rate,
the relationship of mechanical energy with velocity / speed is revealed.

It is not difficult to
analyze what occurs during any s’Gravesande type experiment.
Given how experiments of this type function,
only the following variables and formulas are required to derive a table of
representative values. By specifying the rate of deceleration and the
object’s initial speed, it is a simple matter to calculate the distance an
object travels before stopping and how long that takes in terms of time.

**Variables**

*
a*
—
the rate at which deceleration takes place in meters
per second per second, a constant in this situation

*
s*
— the initial speed of the object in meters per second just before it reaches a
uniform rough surface

*
t*
— is the time in seconds the object decelerates

*
d*
— is the distance in meters the object travels while decelerating

To calculate time and distance, we only need the following two formulas and are of the kind any first year physics student should know.

The following table shows the calculations that result when an object
decelerates at the uniform rate of 1 m/s^{2}.

Initial Speed in meters per second | Time in seconds | Distance in meters |

2 | 2 | 2 |

4 | 4 | 8 |

6 | 6 | 18 |

8 | 8 | 32 |

10 | 10 | 50 |

12 | 12 | 72 |

14 | 14 | 98 |

16 | 16 | 128 |

18 | 18 | 162 |

20 | 20 | 200 |

From this table, it is quite apparent that both the initial speed and the time in seconds for it to come to rest are linear; the distance travelled is not. When plotted (Graph A), this fact becomes extremely obvious.

Graph A

By only measuring one of the
variables and ignoring the other, it is possible to make the case for the status
quo or the New Hypothesis.
If we only look at the time an object takes to
stop moving, a linear relationship is the result and that supports the New
Hypothesis.
If we do as Du Châtelet did and only consider
how far the objects travel, we wind up with “conclusive evidence” for the Work
Energy Theorem.
What happens if we consider both sets of data?

Using the theoretical data
calculated above, we are left with how to combine them (time and distance)
mathematically.
Adding them together or subtracting one number
from the other makes no sense.
Likewise if we were to divide time by
distance.
This leaves us with
the logical and usual idea of dividing the distance traveled by how long it
occurs (*d
÷ t*).
This produces the average speed for the object
during the entire deceleration process for a given initial speed.
The results are plotted on Graph B.

Graph B

A linear increase in an
object’s initial speed produces a linear result when using the entire data set
and that does not bode well for the Work Energy Theorem.
Instead, it shows that the New Hypothesis is
the proper method to quantify mechanical energy.
Had Du Châtelet seen these results, her
conclusion would have been entirely different.
In that case, the scholars of the past, having
no respect for or knowledge of her, probably still would have gone with
*mv ^{2}*
to represent Vis Viva since by that time they understood why momentum cannot represent
mechanical energy.

Proponents for the Work
Energy Theorem might balk by overthinking the results found in Graph B.
The values produced by dividing distance by
time represent the average speed of the object for the entire time it slows
down.
Regardless of the significance of average speed, the
best way to analyze the experimental results is by thinking of the experiment as
a “black box”; data enters and data exits.
In this case, a linear input produces a linear
output.

**Actual Experiments**

**Please note**
that in producing a representative data set, a nice orderly set of integers
resulted.
When actually doing such an experiment, the
data will not turn out to be so nice.
However, the individual values will be very
close in terms of how they fall on a graph with a slight caveat.
Take the case of an automobile traveling at
200 kilometers per hour (kph) and an identical one traveling at 20 kph.
If we apply the brakes exactly equally for
both, the faster vehicle will take less time to reduce its speed by 10 kph than
the slower one.
This is because the faster automobile
encounters far more air.
The more air it must push out of the way, the
greater the counterforce which adds to the counterforce the brakes themselves
provide.
This then explains why it is so difficult for those
trying to break land speed records; the faster the vehicles go the greater the
effect air has in keeping the vehicle from accelerating.
This also tells us that an s’Gravesande type
experiment has an issue — counterforce can vary.
And if the effect is significant, it will
produce values that land on the graph in a slightly non-linear way for Graph B
but only at higher velocities and nowhere near enough to align with the
prediction of the Work Energy Theorem.
This issue is relatively minor and can be
taken into account when plotting data on a graph.

In the case of automobiles,
the effect of air resistance can be demonstrated in another way by using two
different vehicles — a corvette and a van.
If both vehicles have the same mass and are
fitted with the same drive train, their respective graphs will be different when
stopping from high speeds.
The corvette’s graph will be far closer to
Graph B than the one the van produces.
If this experiment could be done on a planet
or moon with no atmosphere, the graphs for both the corvette and van would be
identical and linear.
In any event and unless a gross error is made,
the results of any s’Gravesande type experiment will still confirm the
prediction given by the New Hypothesis.

**The Bottom Line**

Ironically, the only experiment done prior to the general acceptance of the Work Energy Theorem disproves it. There is of course more to know and that information will be added soon. For now, visitors are encouraged to review the history of the Work Energy Theorem, the errors that occurred, to review the Academic Experiment.

NOTE: This website is under construction. There will be more information in the next few weeks, all of which can be verified independently and add to the woes of the Work Energy Theorem.

For Comments, Questions, or to report any errors I may have made please email me at SurprisedOwl@gmail.com.