Kinetic energy hypothesis......

[webolife]

Have you considered the possibility that mass is potential energy?
As such it may indeed be a changeable vector...

Also, the wall and ball you are holding are both in a state of accelerating toward their system centroid, and in orbit around it. There is no condition in the universe where this is not true. Within this frame, small balanced force conditions such as the ball/wall do not defy the basic premise of motion.

[upriver]

Have you considered the possibility that mass is potential energy?
As such it may indeed be a changeable vector...

Also, the wall and ball you are holding are both in a state of accelerating toward their system centroid, and in orbit around it. There is no condition in the universe where this is not true. Within this frame, small balanced force conditions such as the ball/wall do not defy the basic premise of motion.

So are you implying that there is no such thing as straight line motion in a universe with one object?
Or that multiple objects can force a straight line motion?

A macroscopic system like the earth with a block on the ground. The earth is the system centroid. But the block is motionless with respect to the earth.

Which part is accelerating? And natural motion is a straight line. It takes gravitational energy to orbit...

[upriver]

Do photons have mass??
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ave-a-mass

Photon and Graviton Mass Limits
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1003

"A gauge theory is a type of theory in physics. Modern theories describe physical forces in terms of fields, e.g., the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, and fields that describe forces between the elementary particles. A general feature of these field theories is that the fundamental fields cannot be directly measured; however, some associated quantities can be measured, such as charges, energies, and velocities. In field theories, different configurations of the unobservable fields can result in identical observable quantities. A transformation from one such field configuration to another is called a gauge transformation;[1][2] the lack of change in the measurable quantities, despite the field being transformed, is a property called gauge invariance."

[webolife]

Have you considered the possibility that mass is potential energy?
As such it may indeed be a changeable vector...

Also, the wall and ball you are holding are both in a state of accelerating toward their system centroid, and in orbit around it. There is no condition in the universe where this is not true. Within this frame, small balanced force conditions such as the ball/wall do not defy the basic premise of motion.

So are you implying that there is no such thing as straight line motion in a universe with one object?
Or that multiple objects can force a straight line motion?

A macroscopic system like the earth with a block on the ground. The earth is the system centroid. But the block is motionless with respect to the earth.

Which part is accelerating? And natural motion is a straight line. It takes gravitational energy to orbit...

Which part isn't accelerating?
You just described motions that are in fact curvilinear, and gave the reason why: Nowhere in the universe is there an object not moving/accelerating under the influence of gravitation, by whatever mechanism you attribute gravitation to occur. If the block is sitting on a street in Quito it is travelling at least 1600km/hr in a helical path about the center of the Earth as it revolves rapidly along in it's orbit about the sun which is revolving about the center of the Milky Way, which is on a curving path toward the Great attractor near Virgo, which is...???
Reminder that any departure in motion from the ideal Newtonian straight line must be due to an "outside" or "unbalanced" force, and is defined as an acceleration.
So Newton's ideal inertial condition is nonexistent.

I doubt that it is possible to "force" straight line motion under any condition, or least it is impossible to measure or verify it due to simple Galilean relativity.

On the other hand, if you hear me speak of the rectilinear behavior of light, it is because I am describing it as a vectoral action, not objects moving, either corpuscles or waves. In this way the action of light, gravitation, and electrical fields are describable in terms of straight lines, and I believe are unified by this geometric construct.

[upriver]

Adding kinetic energy to a molecular system builds bonds.

To create molecules, the team shot very short pulses of laser light at a small group of magnesium atoms, causing the formation of some amounts of the magnesium dimer Mg2. The team found that they could cause more of the molecules to come about by altering the pulse shape—in one instance they were able to increase the yield by a factor of five. Recognizing that a laser pulse of sufficient intensity would cause bonding, the team used calculations to show that the yields they obtained came about due to coherent control, rather than random chance and then proved it by conducting further experiments. The researchers note that the process does not produce yields of 100 percent because the orientation of the electrons of two atoms must be the same when the laser light strikes in order to cause them to bond.
The results by the researchers show that coherent control of bond-making between atoms using a laser beam is possible, which will likely kick off new research efforts by others. If the process can be refined further, the team suggests, it could very well lead to a great reduction in chemical processing costs as part of manufacturing efforts and possibly create a whole new type of photochemistry.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-molecules-laser.html

[webolife]

In this scenario, laser pulses are the orienting mechanism. By "drawing" the previously "random" electrons of the Mg atoms toward the laser source, the electrons become aligned and the molecular bonding is initiated. While appearing to be so, this is not an attraction; rather the compression of the laser light field at the laser as field centroid, so that the Mg atom electrons, at the "periphery" of the laser field, "fall" [ie. are pushed] toward the centroid as a sink. Put a bit differently, the entire laser field is collapsing or compressed as the laser is turned on, so the compression at the centroid/sink/laser simultaneously triggers the compression at the field periphery. While appearing to be "action at a distance", this becomes a non sequitor if the field is regarded as a single entity.

You speak of KE as if it were a substance being added to objects... rather KE is a property of objects in motion, and cannot be conceptually separated from that moving system. Does that sound right to you?

[upriver]

In this scenario, laser pulses are the orienting mechanism. By "drawing" the previously "random" electrons of the Mg atoms toward the laser source, the electrons become aligned and the molecular bonding is initiated. While appearing to be so, this is not an attraction; rather the compression of the laser light field at the laser as field centroid, so that the Mg atom electrons, at the "periphery" of the laser field, "fall" [ie. are pushed] toward the centroid as a sink. Put a bit differently, the entire laser field is collapsing or compressed as the laser is turned on, so the compression at the centroid/sink/laser simultaneously triggers the compression at the field periphery. While appearing to be "action at a distance", this becomes a non sequitor if the field is regarded as a single entity.

You speak of KE as if it were a substance being added to objects... rather KE is a property of objects in motion, and cannot be conceptually separated from that moving system. Does that sound right to you?

I believe the system draws energy from the laser to create the bonds. If it was just an orientation issue then you would expect molecules to just happen. We know the light can push or pull, i.e. laser tweezers... Which is adding kinetic energy to the system.

You speak of KE as if it were a substance being added to objects... rather KE is a property of objects in motion, and cannot be conceptually separated from that moving system. Does that sound right to you?

This was the big disagreement with powers that be..

Think about it. If you have a system at rest, does it have kinetic energy?
Now introduce a gravitational field for neutral atoms or an electric field for charged particles...

What happens? They move from their rest state. The field imparts kinetic energy to the mass system.

When you remove that kinetic energy(stop the motion) the system reverts back to its pre kinetic energy state with no change..
So does the kinetic energy come from the mass or come from the field? The mass would have to store the kinetic energy yet we see no evidence of that...

So now lets look at kinetic energy... What are the properties of the field?? Those are the properties of kinetic energy. The field is "conceptually separated from that moving system."

[webolife]

What are the properties of the field?? Those are the properties of kinetic energy. The field is "conceptually separated from that moving system."

How so? The field imparts KE, as you indicated and I agree... but the field is [mostly] defined by the centroidal object and the peripheral object which is interacting with it.

[upriver]

What are the properties of the field?? Those are the properties of kinetic energy. The field is "conceptually separated from that moving system."

How so? The field imparts KE, as you indicated and I agree... but the field is [mostly] defined by the centroidal object and the peripheral object which is interacting with it.

I meant to say that Kinetic energy is conceptually separated from the mass. But that still brings up the point of how the field actually works...

Ah, yes. So there is a reservoir of kinetic energy I call the kinetic aether(zero point, universal background etc..).,..

The aether itself is the field. They way I think of it is that the field increases in density as it approaches mass.
Its interaction with mass provides the motion.

Mass causes the field to change state from a kinetic state into a state that interacts with mass if there is a charge involved?. Gravity works differently somehow, what I call a different vector or waveform........

The issue at hand is related to what causes particles to maintain a resonance, to stay coherent. You would expect them to lose energy and die. But they dont. So there is some kind of hysteresis, or lock that causes the resonance to remain.
Like a one way valve...

This mechanism is responsible for the structure that we see in particles.

[webolife]

Your ideas are similar in many ways to mine, but...
I have a problem with your somewhat undefined aether, as I have with every aether I've encountered.
You said you think the aether increases density near masses - if so how do masses increase velocity/accelerate as they approach other masses [ie. gravitational acceleration]? Why wouldn't your more dense aether hinder gravitation? My pressure vector field naturally is denser approaching the system centroid, for obvious reasons. This vector density explains heating, so also affirms increasing KE.
One difference is my recognition of the inevitability of "action at a distance". As odious as it is to some [as it was to Galileo, when Kepler suggested it as a "spirit"], there is no lowest hierarchy or aether concept that doesn't have particles interacting across a distance in some way. The only way I see to avoid this is to have yet smaller particles mediating between them, then even smaller particles mediating between those... now for some who have a universe with infinite mass [an oxymoron] this is not a problem, perhaps, but for me this is a huge logical dilemma. Or perhaps the aether is a solid structure... which presents a whole universe of additional physical problems to solve.
I don't get your "field" changing from an kinetic state to one that interacts with mass... all matter possesses mass, KE and PE, are you perhaps thinking of an interchange of these two energy aspects? In my centropic pressure field there are two aspects, centropic pressure [vectors directed toward the field centroid, which includes atomic forces, electricity, gravitation, and light, et.al.], and angular momentum . These two aspects are generally in dynamic equilibrium, but the centropic "holding" force is paramount, so centropy is also entropy, a net field collapse occurs in every interaction. This tendency is also the agent of "mass", the coagulation of matter. Perhaps this is also your "one-way valve"?

[upriver]

Your ideas are similar in many ways to mine, but...
I have a problem with your somewhat undefined aether, as I have with every aether I've encountered.
You said you think the aether increases density near masses - if so how do masses increase velocity/accelerate as they approach other masses [ie. gravitational acceleration]? Why wouldn't your more dense aether hinder gravitation? My pressure vector field naturally is denser approaching the system centroid, for obvious reasons. This vector density explains heating, so also affirms increasing KE.

So the aether structure that I have devised will allow the present universe to be built. It would explain everything that I have ever read about or observed.. (I hope.)

The 3 things that are unanswered are
1. Where did order come from?
2. Where did kinetic energy(motion) come from.
3. Where did mass come from.
We are talking about the smallest scale possible. 10^-40. We cant even measure it no how no way.. Yet...

The aether is a 3D ordered lattice of particles in a captured motion with a fineness below the Planck length.
The particles are MASSLESS matter... This particular trait allows for FTL communications...

Here is a sketch of my thoughts. Its a 3D lattice. The particles have a very tiny 360 degree range of motion.
This allows for wave travel through the aether.
So now if we look at what actually makes up a particle you can see that its a spherical standing wave...
My bad drawing.
https://app.box.com/s/q4s3o9jkgof2hhul6xhewkiqig0dgsqb

Think about a wave... What is actually moving from one side of the tank to the other... In matter...
Nice wave applet.
http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/w ... otion.html

The energy gets the the other end without moving every particle in the path to the target... That energy is kinetic energy...

One difference is my recognition of the inevitability of "action at a distance". As odious as it is to some [as it was to Galileo, when Kepler suggested it as a "spirit"], there is no lowest hierarchy or aether concept that doesn't have particles interacting across a distance in some way. The only way I see to avoid this is to have yet smaller particles mediating between them, then even smaller particles mediating between those... now for some who have a universe with infinite mass [an oxymoron] this is not a problem, perhaps, but for me this is a huge logical dilemma. Or perhaps the aether is a solid structure... which presents a whole universe of additional physical problems to solve.
I don't get your "field" changing from an kinetic state to one that interacts with mass... all matter possesses mass, KE and PE, are you perhaps thinking of an interchange of these two energy aspects?

So in my description you can see that what we call matter with mass(an electron) is actually a spherical waveform in massless particulate matter..

Since true matter is massless and what we call matter with mass are just waveforms in the aether, that means that mass or inertia is a result of a wave forms interaction with the other waveforms in the aether.... Think of ripples in a pond interacting with other ripples in a pond...

Massless matter allows for FTL signaling because it doesnt have the limitation of mass. I.e. The faster you go the more energy is required to push you. Thats because of the interaction with the ripples, "friction"...

The key here is that the longitudinal waves travel through a massless medium.
Its only half the equation to say longitudinal waves are faster than light... You must also specify the medium...

Then you have to specify how the signal gets from a massive "slower than light" wave particle to a FTL longitudinal wave form... One is a waveform directly in the massless aether(FTL) and the other is a wave form in the Massive wave forms(STL) realm... The same realm that makes up particles...

There is probably some rule like the moment you confine it or it touches massive matter, it loses its ability to read FTL kinetic signals..

In my centropic pressure field there are two aspects, centropic pressure [vectors directed toward the field centroid, which includes atomic forces, electricity, gravitation, and light, et.al.], and angular momentum . These two aspects are generally in dynamic equilibrium, but the centropic "holding" force is paramount, so centropy is also entropy, a net field collapse occurs in every interaction. This tendency is also the agent of "mass", the coagulation of matter. Perhaps this is also your "one-way valve"?

There is a lot written about the vortex. And I couldnt really connect it to what I was doing.
But the idea of the centroid property may help incorporate this motion into the model...

It may be that there is something about the centroid property helps the formation of helicity and the vortex...

[webolife]

Yes, before the passing of my friend, the late Dean Ward [Junglelord], that was a focus of one of our TB dialogues.
Dean was very much into the vortical nature of matter and energy. You and he would have got along well.

[upriver]

Yes, before the passing of my friend, the late Dean Ward [Junglelord], that was a focus of one of our TB dialogues.
Dean was very much into the vortical nature of matter and energy. You and he would have got along well.

Thank you for your kind words!! I have actually talked to Jungle Lord... He will be missed...

[upriver]

A little bit of speculation about the nature of time....


Starting with a hypothetical universe with no matter, infinite extent and infinite existence....

Does time exist?? I say that time does not exist. It is only a tool to measure things. There is no need for time in the universe just described..

Now add a hydrogen atom... Does time come into existence the moment you add the atom??

I say that time still doesnt exist.. What does exist at that moment is the process that we call an atom...

Does the atom need time to exist?? I dont think so... It a process that just goes no matter what. As long as there is energy to drive it...

What good is time. We can measure the parameters of the existence of the H atom...
Time is a tool for measurement....

Can you time travel??

If you think of the universe as a collection of waves in the massless matter aether, then every new motion or action affects the waves before and forever affects the patterns of waves coming after it.

Like throwing a stone in a pond full of ripples....

So then time travel is just tracing the patterns of waves backwards to the pattern that existed at that moment in time...
There is no need for the universe to have all knowing clock... It just has to be a container for the wave patterns...

Can you go forward in time? Thats little more tricky. But based on antecdotal human quotes, yes. People have seen the future...

That implies that all that has happened and all that will happen exists in the wave patterns of the universe...
Without the need for some universal property called time. There is only individual processes that generate waves in the fabric of the universe...

[webolife]

I question [but do not completely disavow] the physical existence of time myself. I think of the artificiality of time zones on our spinning globe. The fact that measuring time always references a repetitive event in space. It is a perspective for comparative analysis of separate events. Our mathematics treats time as though it were a defined quantity affecting physical reality, but is it?

Now some observations about your post -- you use a number of words that contain the concept of time to try to define or un-define time:
"moment"..."process"..."just goes on"..."waves" [periodicity implies time]..."before"..."forever"..."after"..."future"..."has happened"..."will happen"...
It is difficult to describe the continuity of our human experience of the universe without invoking the concept of time. There are some events of the future that are in fact predetermined by their current/present kinetic energy vectors. These "future" event therefore exist in the "now". Likewise there are events of the present/now that were predetermined by their past vectors. I do not believe these events comprise the whole of physical reality. Can we then "see" the future by our accurate measurement of the "present?" The past is simply a story, or a stored data set which exists in the "now." The future, at least from the standpoint of human experience, doesn't yet exist.

All there is is "now"... a continuously changing now... so time is a measure of change.