Kinetic energy hypothesis......

[upriver]

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?

So would you really need another "knob" to turn to change the physical behavior of an object? If everything is based on a prime vibration or energy level(of the aether) then time is in addition to speeding up or slowing down a process.... It would have the same effect.

A prediction... There is an energy loss into the aether factor(ripple loss?) that is besides the amount of energy that is required to accelerate an object based on its mass. Does that sound right?
Its in the time dilation formula somewhere... I need to find that...

Its easier to make a universe thats coherent with individual processes that speed up or slow down vs a universal property that speeds up or slows down depending on where it is in the universe but its still all connected together... If time is different everywhere then why do you need it anywhere.

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.

Yes. The key word here is "measure or measurement".

After thinking about what you are saying, I can come up with a scenario where you could make a prediction of future events based on an analysis of the past ripple patterns....
In other words you could predict or travel into the future and it would be flexible within certain limits.... Certain probable outcomes... The machine would look for ripple patterns in the kinetic aether and display them on a screen...

So really there is sort of a destiny based on major ripple patterns but you have control of minor outcomes... And you could control outcomes by knowing how to think in certain ripple patterns...

It would also fulfill the idea of parallel universes based on energy patterns, or groups of changing ripples in the pond.....
Different energy levels or groups of ripple patterns would be parallel dimensions.... But in the same universe container...

[upriver]

Just some random thoughts...

Reading about Miles Mathis' Photon field...

He is partially right....

Photons are "structured" kinetic energy.

He just didnt go far enough and ask the question " What are photons made of?"

[webolife]

For me a photon is a unit of centropic pressure, actuated/measured at the moment of an electron field collapse.
As such, albeit a kinetic energy event happened [to the electron], the shift of field potential is what is observed [at the retina]. Sight = "voltage", not "amps"...

[upriver]

For me a photon is a unit of centropic pressure, actuated/measured at the moment of an electron field collapse.
As such, albeit a kinetic energy event happened [to the electron], the shift of field potential is what is observed [at the retina]. Sight = "voltage", not "amps"...

What do you mean "centropic pressure"?



If you look at electron, a change in vector or a change in velocity is when they emit photons...
Its when there is energy input into the system by a field.

My hypothesis is that the field inputs energy into the "electron" at a greater rate than is required to change vector or velocity.. If this energy is not shed the electron becomes unstable, so the extra energy is shed in the form of photons...
This kinetic energy in the form of a photon is carried to your eye. There it is absorbed by an electron transmitted down a nerve to be called sight...

The extra energy when an electron is in an atom goes into bonds....

[webolife]

What do you mean "centropic pressure"?

I'm glad you asked.

Gravitation is centropic pressure, ie. pressure directed toward the local system centroid, at whatever hierarchy.
Nuclear force is centropic pressure.
Electromotive force is centropic pressure.
Electronegativity is an outcome of centropic pressure.
Entropy is an outcome of centropic pressure... "centropy" = entropy... therefore perhaps "time" may be our experience of centropic pressure.
The Casimir effect is centropic pressure.
An AGC is the result of centropic pressure.
A "Z" pinch is probably the result of centropic pressure, as are vortices.
"Mass" is a measurement of centropic pressure relative to two bodies in a system.
If the universe has finite mass, as I believe, then centropy is the universal binding force that defines it.
As a finite "object" the universe's "parts" are intrinsically connected, so eg. I am in the same system as the sun, as a peripheral member of its field.

And, for the final unification, I believe... light is also a manifestation of centropic pressure, so...
when an energetic electron [in a light filament, tube, photosphere, or distant star] falls [under centropy/entropy] to a lower energy state, its field [which includes me as a peripheral member] collapses [instantly, since we are members of the same system/field] and if I'm looking my retina sees light. In this view nothing is emitted from the centroid that must travel some distance before striking my photoreceptors, rather my photoreceptors are already attuned to changes in the field, operating rather like little voltmeters. The pressure is toward the light "source" as a sink, and operates at the back of my retina to record the change in the field. Since light pressure/force is describable entirely in terms of optical ray diagrams, I conclude quite simply that light is rays/vectors, and not particles nor waves. Radiation is easily defined in the direction of the system centroid [as also gravitation], rather than emanating from it, so the concept of vector density naturally resolves heat, mass, inverse square relationships [gravitation ,charge,..], Keplerian and Newtonian planetary motions, spin, polarization, the preeminence of hexagonal structure, and just perhaps everything else in physics.

[upriver]

What do you mean "centropic pressure"?

I'm glad you asked.

Gravitation is centropic pressure, ie. pressure directed toward the local system centroid, at whatever hierarchy.
Nuclear force is centropic pressure.
Electromotive force is centropic pressure.
Electronegativity is an outcome of centropic pressure.
Entropy is an outcome of centropic pressure... "centropy" = entropy... therefore perhaps "time" may be our experience of centropic pressure.
The Casimir effect is centropic pressure.
An AGC is the result of centropic pressure.
A "Z" pinch is probably the result of centropic pressure, as are vortices.
"Mass" is a measurement of centropic pressure relative to two bodies in a system.

So what causes the centropic pressure, or what is the agent of centropic pressure?

It seem as though we are talking about longitudinal waves in the Kinetic Aether. This is all about forces without acceleration(work done).

If the universe has finite mass, as I believe, then centropy is the universal binding force that defines it.
As a finite "object" the universe's "parts" are intrinsically connected, so eg. I am in the same system as the sun, as a peripheral member of its field.

Does that imply a preferred center to the universe? I would argue against a preferred center...

And, for the final unification, I believe... light is also a manifestation of centropic pressure, so...
when an energetic electron [in a light filament, tube, photosphere, or distant star] falls [under centropy/entropy] to a lower energy state, its field [which includes me as a peripheral member] collapses [instantly, since we are members of the same system/field] and if I'm looking my retina sees light. In this view nothing is emitted from the centroid that must travel some distance before striking my photoreceptors, rather my photoreceptors are already attuned to changes in the field, operating rather like little voltmeters. The pressure is toward the light "source" as a sink, and operates at the back of my retina to record the change in the field. Since light pressure/force is describable entirely in terms of optical ray diagrams, I conclude quite simply that light is rays/vectors, and not particles nor waves.

Of what?

I'm saying that its kinetic pressure. On the aether level your model is most likely going to have some kind of subdivisions. You might be able to have a continuous aether but that doesnt seem to be what is observed. We observe quantization..

Radiation is easily defined in the direction of the system centroid [as also gravitation], rather than emanating from it, so the concept of vector density naturally resolves heat, mass, inverse square relationships [gravitation ,charge,..], Keplerian and Newtonian planetary motions, spin, polarization, the preeminence of hexagonal structure, and just perhaps everything else in physics.

Everything that you talking about is a form of motion. Work done energy transferred non accelerating forces...
In the case of a static force, kinetic energy is transferred to hold the object...
I would argue that introducing the idea of a curve requires more energy, constant acceleration. This requires electric, magnetic or gravitational fields... If I were looking at causality I would say the field causes the pressure if acting upon a discreet object. Otherwise youre talking about the field itself.

We still need a FTL capable system integrated into the universe. I believe that we need it to account for tunneling, entanglement, electric forces(FTL), gravity(FTL), consciousness, telepathy, warp drive, force fields or anything else that we can imagine...

Kinetic energy goes a long way to explaining any of the observations I can think of...

[webolife]

I would argue that introducing the idea of a curve requires more energy, constant acceleration. This requires electric, magnetic or gravitational fields... If I were looking at causality I would say the field causes the pressure if acting upon a discreet object. Otherwise youre talking about the field itself.

Everything that you talking about is a form of motion. Work done energy transferred non accelerating forces...
In the case of a static force, kinetic energy is transferred to hold the object...

It seem as though we are talking about longitudinal waves in the Kinetic Aether. This is all about forces without acceleration(work done).

Your waves take time. My rays don't, although their action upon objects produces "event space"...time, eg. the time it takes for an electron to "jump" [fall], which would be the same as the time for a photon to be registered.

Does that imply a preferred center to the universe? I would argue against a preferred center...

Finitude seems to imply a center, however it really infers a boundary condition, a maximum quantity in terms of mass and space [two sides of a coin I think]. In terms of a universal field, my vectors are containment vectors [the logical complement of "finitude". Therefore the field is one of centropic pressure, vectored/radiating inward toward whatever center of polity is being examined, referenced or measured. These are my rays. If the field must be "kinetic" then these must be your longitudinal waves. But as I said, a ray is detected, not measured "kinetically" en route. Just like light.

I'm saying that its kinetic pressure. On the aether level your model is most likely going to have some kind of subdivisions. You might be able to have a continuous aether but that doesn't seem to be what is observed. We observe quantization...

I don't need aether, just geometry, or a geometric matrix. By kinetic pressure, you mean particles knocking particles knocking particles, at an infinitesimally/invisibly/immeasurably low level... I accomplish the same thing, without inventing invisible undetectable aether particles. As I said before, quantization of photons is about the jump of an electron and the simultaneous response of my rod or cone cell; no need for "subdivision" [of rays]...

Everything that you talking about is a form of motion. Work done energy transferred non accelerating forces...

I don't agree here. When I measure a voltage drop [electrical potential energy], I'm not measuring particles moving across a space, I'm measuring a [static] pressure field... I think. When I weigh myself on the bathroom scale, I'm measuring gravitational potential energy. There are no non-accelerated motions in the universe. All are curved.
Whether or not these accelerations are mediated by undetectable aetheric collisions, or by a [potential energy] pressure field, is where you and I have our debate.

I would argue that introducing the idea of a curve requires more energy, constant acceleration. This requires electric, magnetic or gravitational fields... If I were looking at causality I would say the field causes the pressure if acting upon a discreet object. Otherwise youre talking about the field itself.

Yes.

We still need a FTL capable system integrated into the universe. I believe that we need it to account for tunneling, entanglement, electric forces(FTL), gravity(FTL), consciousness, telepathy

My system is FTL if L ="c".

[upriver]

I would argue that introducing the idea of a curve requires more energy, constant acceleration. This requires electric, magnetic or gravitational fields... If I were looking at causality I would say the field causes the pressure if acting upon a discreet object. Otherwise youre talking about the field itself.

Everything that you talking about is a form of motion. Work done energy transferred non accelerating forces...
In the case of a static force, kinetic energy is transferred to hold the object...

It seem as though we are talking about longitudinal waves in the Kinetic Aether. This is all about forces without acceleration(work done).

Your waves take time. My rays don't, although their action upon objects produces "event space"...time, eg. the time it takes for an electron to "jump" [fall], which would be the same as the time for a photon to be registered.

What takes time is mass. Waves are the result of kinetic energy moving through a fluid or particle system. You can transfer energy with out actually changing the rest mass of the particles or fluid in the system. A photon is similar. It doesnt gain mass until its accelerated and has no rest mass existence outside an electron.
Hence the massless aether. So that waves move though the massless kinetic aether many times faster than light.
Light speed takes place at the mass level...

Does that imply a preferred center to the universe? I would argue against a preferred center...

Finitude seems to imply a center, however it really infers a boundary condition, a maximum quantity in terms of mass and space [two sides of a coin I think]. In terms of a universal field, my vectors are containment vectors [the logical complement of "finitude". Therefore the field is one of centropic pressure, vectored/radiating inward toward whatever center of polity is being examined, referenced or measured. These are my rays. If the field must be "kinetic" then these must be your longitudinal waves. But as I said, a ray is detected, not measured "kinetically" en route. Just like light.

I'm saying that its kinetic pressure. On the aether level your model is most likely going to have some kind of subdivisions. You might be able to have a continuous aether but that doesn't seem to be what is observed. We observe quantization...

I don't need aether, just geometry, or a geometric matrix. By kinetic pressure, you mean particles knocking particles knocking particles, at an infinitesimally/invisibly/immeasurably low level... I accomplish the same thing, without inventing invisible undetectable aether particles. As I said before, quantization of photons is about the jump of an electron and the simultaneous response of my rod or cone cell; no need for "subdivision" [of rays]...

I am talking a about pressure, longitudinal waves, resonant shells. Its whats observed. Particles dont actually touch. If an H atom proton was the size of a basket ball the electron would be 12 miles away.
No, all atomic systems and forces operate without actually touching. The transfer of energy takes place via fields. So you have a structure that is the "solid" part of the atom and then there are fields and then the next part of the atom.. The fields are the kinetic aether in between the resonant nodes(particles) in the kinetic aether...
Particles are resonant shells system, like an onion. Here is a system that I worked on...

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Da ... z-type.png

Everything that you talking about is a form of motion. Work done energy transferred non accelerating forces...

I don't agree here. When I measure a voltage drop [electrical potential energy], I'm not measuring particles moving across a space, I'm measuring a [static] pressure field... I think. When I weigh myself on the bathroom scale, I'm measuring gravitational potential energy. There are no non-accelerated motions in the universe. All are curved.
Whether or not these accelerations are mediated by undetectable aetheric collisions, or by a [potential energy] pressure field, is where you and I have our debate.

Motion is kinetic energy expressed through mass...
If you drop a ball on a table, does the gravitational energy stop or change form once the ball stops moving?? No. Gravity is still inputting kinetic energy to the object even though it has stopped moving. So somehow once the object stops the force now flows through it only to act on a non attached object like a pendulum in the same direct path. Its what is observed.
This is almost exactly the same description of the force generated by Podkletnov.

So even though the object is not moving there is still energy being transferred through it. Work is the transfer of energy... Work is being done by the force generated by the transfer of energy to hold the ball on the table...

I would argue that introducing the idea of a curve requires more energy, constant acceleration. This requires electric, magnetic or gravitational fields... If I were looking at causality I would say the field causes the pressure if acting upon a discreet object. Otherwise youre talking about the field itself.

Yes.

We still need a FTL capable system integrated into the universe. I believe that we need it to account for tunneling, entanglement, electric forces(FTL), gravity(FTL), consciousness, telepathy

My system is FTL if L ="c".

Do you agree that mass does not go FTL? That only inertialess, or massless matter can go FTL based on experimental evidence? And there is evidence for FTL electrical signals??

[webolife]

I'm having what may be some semantic issues with your descriptions:
1. You speak of kinetic energy as if the energy is stuff that moves... but KE is generally understood as the work done by moving stuff [ie a certain amount of matter moves a certain distance by the action of a force]. I get confused when you speak of KE as moving through mass...
2. While I see mass as a process, similarly to you, I think of Mass more in terms of PE than KE; generally Mass is a centropic process where KE is generally the opposite direction.
3. Photons "gain mass"? I follow your concept somewhat here except that to me a "photon" and "mass" unit are two consequences of the same field pressure.
4. For aether to be a medium for waving light, it must behave as though it has mass, yet you are attributing actions which require mass to objects which you at the same time say have no mass [photons and aether particles]... ?
5. You said: "Light speed takes place at the mass level" -- you mean at the "matter" level? Or are you saying that light moves FTL in the massless aether but acquires "c" somehow as it interacts with a massive object? Can you explain further?
(As you must realize by now, I don't believe light is stuff moving across space from source to observer.)
6.

No, all atomic systems and forces operate without actually touching. The transfer of energy takes place via fields. So you have a structure that is the "solid" part of the atom and then there are fields and then the next part of the atom.. The fields are the kinetic aether in between the resonant nodes(particles) in the kinetic aether...

I think I totally agree with the bolded part... so your aether transfers momentum [mv] across the space between "solid" objects, I think, but doesn't have any "m"... yet KE = (1/2)mv^2 ... I can't see how this is supposed to work physically or mathematically.
7.

If you drop a ball on a table, does the gravitational energy stop or change form once the ball stops moving?? No. Gravity is still inputting kinetic energy to the object even though it has stopped moving. So somehow once the object stops the force now flows through it only to act on a non attached object like a pendulum in the same direct path. Its what is observed.

-- clearly you are interchanging PE and KE in this description. I cannot help you or understand you better if you continue to do this. "Stopped moving" directly infers that KE is no longer in operation.
8.

Work is the transfer of energy... Work is being done by the force generated by the transfer of energy to hold the ball on the table...

Ok start, but then you say work [energy] is done by the force that is caused by the energy[work] holding the ball... You're confusing work and force and energy in a way that I can't follow. In general, I am of the view that force and energy are co-indicated in every situation, but we have to be very careful how we describe these terms in order to avoid muddy circular thinking.
9.

Do you agree that mass does not go FTL? That only inertialess, or massless matter can go FTL based on experimental evidence? And there is evidence for FTL electrical signals??

If what you mean to say is "matter" rather than "mass", I agree with that first clause generally. Yes to FTL electrical action. But the phrase "massless matter... based on experimental evidence" makes no sense to me...

[upriver]

I'm having what may be some semantic issues with your descriptions:
1. You speak of kinetic energy as if the energy is stuff that moves... but KE is generally understood as the work done by moving stuff [ie a certain amount of matter moves a certain distance by the action of a force]. I get confused when you speak of KE as moving through mass...

Matter with mass is what moves when kinetic energy interacts with it.

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms.[1] The "ability of a system to perform work" is a common description, but it is misleading because energy is not necessarily available to do work.[2] For instance, in SI units, energy is measured in joules, and one joule is defined "mechanically", being the energy transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.[note 1] However, there are many other definitions of energy, depending on the context, such as thermal energy, radiant energy, electromagnetic, nuclear, etc., where definitions are derived that are the most convenient."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

I am saying that kinetic energy can be thought of as having an independent existence from mass.
The aether is a reservoir of kinetic energy that everything is drawn from. The substrate of fine massless matter, is what "stores" the kinetic energy...

“All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena.” – Nikola Tesla,“Man’s Greatest Achievement,” 1907

In Tewari’s words:

“The universal matter is created out of prana since prana is aakaash in motion, and aakaash is the primordial superfluid substratum of the universe.”

In this experiment the water has no form until you introduce kinetic energy..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THUMdTohWkI

Kinetic energy can be thought of as similar to water in a bucket in a bucket brigade. Electricity's job is the microscopic transfer of kinetic energy...

2. While I see mass as a process, similarly to you, I think of Mass more in terms of PE than KE; generally Mass is a centropic process where KE is generally the opposite direction.

Matter with mass is always in motion.

3. Photons "gain mass"? I follow your concept somewhat here except that to me a "photon" and "mass" unit are two consequences of the same field pressure.

Energy in electron volts. Energy is mass. They have different energies. I think of of lightspeed matter as being the ripples in the substrate of the universe. Like the nodes in the water of the speaker experiment. So every particle is "made of kinetic energy" and the different forms of interactions can be thought of as different "vectors" like gravity and the electrical force.

4. For aether to be a medium for waving light, it must behave as though it has mass, yet you are attributing actions which require mass to objects which you at the same time say have no mass [photons and aether particles]... ?

The aether particles are matter with no inertia.
Photons have "mass" once they start moving if you use a unit common for everything, like electron volts.. But they are different than an electron in that they dont have matter. They are pure kinetic energy.

Here they get photons to interact.
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists ... -seen.html

5. You said: "Light speed takes place at the mass level" -- you mean at the "matter" level? Or are you saying that light moves FTL in the massless aether but acquires "c" somehow as it interacts with a massive object? Can you explain further?
(As you must realize by now, I don't believe light is stuff moving across space from source to observer.)

"Light speed takes place at the mass level" Yes. What ever it is that provides inertia/mass to matter is the same cause for the light speed "limit" for a massive object.

In any transaction energy is always exchanged... If you think about it, light occupys a particular frequency range in the universe..
There are experiments that show the light is the result of accumulation of instantaneous forces but it seems to make more sense if light speed is a result of it traveling through the mass level.. I also have mulled over the pilot wave idea... I am not 100% sure. I need to do some more reading..

6.

No, all atomic systems and forces operate without actually touching. The transfer of energy takes place via fields. So you have a structure that is the "solid" part of the atom and then there are fields and then the next part of the atom.. The fields are the kinetic aether in between the resonant nodes(particles) in the kinetic aether...

I think I totally agree with the bolded part... so your aether transfers momentum [mv] across the space between "solid" objects, I think, but doesn't have any "m"... yet KE = (1/2)mv^2 ... I can't see how this is supposed to work physically or mathematically.

KE = (1/2)mv^2. Doesnt this just show you how much kinetic energy is associated with a mass under those conditions?
Its doesnt say that mass has to be present to have kinetic energy.

A gravitational field, electric field, light and magnetic field transfer kinetic energy(mv is just kinetic energy with a vector) with no mass.
If you drop an electron in an electric field "virtual photons" cause it to move.... Virtual photons are the same thing as my kinetic aether.

7.

If you drop a ball on a table, does the gravitational energy stop or change form once the ball stops moving?? No. Gravity is still inputting kinetic energy to the object even though it has stopped moving. So somehow once the object stops the force now flows through it only to act on a non attached object like a pendulum in the same direct path. Its what is observed.

-- clearly you are interchanging PE and KE in this description. I cannot help you or understand you better if you continue to do this. "Stopped moving" directly infers that KE is no longer in operation.

Potential energy is just book keeping. Typically it is said that gravity does no work and if you move something high in a gravitational field in has potential energy. Energy is a flow. It never stops. It cant be potential.
You dont take a cup of gravity juice and carry it up with you.

Gravity does not change how it operates when the object under its influence goes from accelerating to stopped.
Gravity would still be dynamically operating inputting kinetic energy into the stopped object.

8.

Work is the transfer of energy... Work is being done by the force generated by the transfer of energy to hold the ball on the table...

Ok start, but then you say work [energy] is done by the force that is caused by the energy[work] holding the ball... You're confusing work and force and energy in a way that I can't follow. In general, I am of the view that force and energy are co-indicated in every situation, but we have to be very careful how we describe these terms in order to avoid muddy circular thinking.

Work is the transfer of energy. Energy is used to generate the force that does the work(transfers the energy). However you can still transfer energy without distance... Work done without macroscopic distance traveled...

9.

Do you agree that mass does not go FTL? That only inertialess, or massless matter can go FTL based on experimental evidence? And there is evidence for FTL electrical signals??

If what you mean to say is "matter" rather than "mass", I agree with that first clause generally. Yes to FTL electrical action. But the phrase "massless matter... based on experimental evidence" makes no sense to me...

Ghostly Particle with No Mass Finally Created in the Lab
http://www.livescience.com/51584-weyl-f ... d-lab.html

[upriver]

Excellent presentation...

Transport Properties in Graphene-based materials Theoretical Perspective

Dirac point transport occurs via “Bulk evanescent waves”

http://grm.iyte.edu.tr/docs/Lectures/Pr ... 2014-I.pdf

[webolife]

Ghostly Particle with No Mass Finally Created in the Lab
http://www.livescience.com/51584-weyl-f ... d-lab.html

Finally got a chance to look over this research. Sounds a bit premature to call this a "finally created" object. Looks the CERN folks are dubious of its particulate nature as well.
If it walks like a light action and quacks like a light action, I'm going with light action... like a fundamental level photo-electric effect.
I will be following that research however as it looks like there mnay be some good direct confirmation of electron light action entanglement aka instantaneous centropic field pressure.

On "evanescence" that field property closely matches the vector-based pressure field perspective of my centropic theory, particularly the comparison between far field and near field Poynting vectors. Rather than "0 energy", however I would suggest there is a net centropic/entropic change associated with each light action.

[upriver]

Ghostly Particle with No Mass Finally Created in the Lab
http://www.livescience.com/51584-weyl-f ... d-lab.html

Finally got a chance to look over this research. Sounds a bit premature to call this a "finally created" object. Looks the CERN folks are dubious of its particulate nature as well.
If it walks like a light action and quacks like a light action, I'm going with light action... like a fundamental level photo-electric effect.

That may be so but they are looking for them so there is already a calculated place in physics just like the Massless Dirac point Electron of Graphene!!

Light action is the transfer of kinetic energy. Light action is motion... If everything is thought of as kinetic energy you can use the same units on everything. When light is moving it has units of motion(speed) Electron Volts and you can add a vector if you wish. This is the same set of units to measure the motional energy of a mass in motion. A mass in motion could be divided into 2 types of energy. That which it gains through motion and that which is intrinsic, the mass itself. If I accelerate that mass to .87 c and then decelerate it to 0 c, I have burned 2 times the mass in kinetic energy without changing the original mass. In reality the rocket ship system to perform the experiment burns more than that.

I will be following that research however as it looks like there mnay be some good direct confirmation of electron light action entanglement aka instantaneous centropic field pressure.

On "evanescence" that field property closely matches the vector-based pressure field perspective of my centropic theory, particularly the comparison between far field and near field Poynting vectors. Rather than "0 energy", however I would suggest there is a net centropic/entropic change associated with each light action.

You could think of entanglement as a extended evanescent field. Evanescent fields are superluminal and support tunneling as well as carry kinetic energy. You could think of it as the kinetic near field of glass vs the kinetic near field of a wire... Experiments with electrons turning spin into electric current and back again take place on topological insulators...

My prediction is that we will eventually figure out how to take matter and do Macroscopic Tunneling.
We will learn how to convert atoms into kinetic energy, push them through the barrier and wind up next to Jupiter within the Hartman Effect time.

"Another paradoxical result, known as the Hartman effect, is that the tunneling time of the photons becomes independent of barrier length in the limit of opaque barriers."

I believe that the Hartman effect is correct and what we cant see is the Bohr Pilot wave. If we can develop techniques to see the pilot wave then we can send information FTL. Sansbury was close.

So take matter and scan it to increase its energy level. Remember we live in a sea of energy. Once it matches the barrier level you proceed to move the particles through the barrier. Once on the other side, you reverse the process.
With a short jump space ship you would have to see through the tunnel to know what the barrier level was to be able to reintegrate. It A long jump ship should be able to read the barrier level at that point in space to drop out of warp.

That would be a warp drive based on what I think is knowable science.... The Callahan Barrier Drive... Or the Tunneling Barrier Drive. Or maybe just The Kinetic Drive by that guy Callahan...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412146.pdf
http://inspirehep.net/record/1299499/references?ln=en

Spatially resolved edge currents and guided-wave electronic states in graphene
"Exploiting the light-like properties of carriers in graphene could allow extreme non-classical forms of electronic transport to be realized1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. In this vein, finding ways to confine and direct electronic waves through nanoscale streams and streamlets, unimpeded by the presence of other carriers, has remained a grand challenge9, 10, 11, 12. Inspired by guiding of light in fibre optics, here we demonstrate a route to engineer such a flow of electrons using a technique for mapping currents at submicron scales. We employ real-space imaging of current flow in graphene to provide direct evidence of the confinement of electron waves at the edges of a graphene crystal near charge neutrality. This is achieved by using superconducting interferometry in a graphene Josephson junction and reconstructing the spatial structure of conducting pathways using Fourier methods13. The observed edge currents arise from coherent guided-wave states, confined to the edge by band bending and transmitted as plane waves. As an electronic analogue of photon guiding in optical fibres, the observed states afford non-classical means for information transduction and processing at the nanoscale."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.07630v1.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v12 ... bal=remove

[upriver]

You could think of entanglement as a extended evanescent field. Evanescent fields are superluminal and support tunneling as well as carry kinetic energy. You could think of it as the kinetic near field of glass vs the kinetic near field of a wire... Experiments with electrons turning spin into electric current and back again take place on topological insulators...

My prediction is that we will eventually figure out how to take matter and do Macroscopic Tunneling.
We will learn how to convert atoms into kinetic energy, push them through the barrier and wind up next to Jupiter within the Hartman Effect time.

"Another paradoxical result, known as the Hartman effect, is that the tunneling time of the photons becomes independent of barrier length in the limit of opaque barriers."

I believe that the Hartman effect is correct and what we cant see is the Bohr Pilot wave. If we can develop techniques to see the pilot wave then we can send information FTL. Sansbury was close.

So take matter and scan it to increase its energy level. Remember we live in a sea of energy. Once it matches the barrier level you proceed to move the particles through the barrier. Once on the other side, you reverse the process.
With a short jump space ship you would have to see through the tunnel to know what the barrier level was to be able to reintegrate. It A long jump ship should be able to read the barrier level at that point in space to drop out of warp.

That would be a warp drive based on what I think is knowable science.... The Callahan Barrier Drive... Or the Tunneling Barrier Drive. Or maybe just The Kinetic Drive by that guy Callahan...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412146.pdf
http://inspirehep.net/record/1299499/references?ln=en

Spatially resolved edge currents and guided-wave electronic states in graphene
"Exploiting the light-like properties of carriers in graphene could allow extreme non-classical forms of electronic transport to be realized1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. In this vein, finding ways to confine and direct electronic waves through nanoscale streams and streamlets, unimpeded by the presence of other carriers, has remained a grand challenge9, 10, 11, 12. Inspired by guiding of light in fibre optics, here we demonstrate a route to engineer such a flow of electrons using a technique for mapping currents at submicron scales. We employ real-space imaging of current flow in graphene to provide direct evidence of the confinement of electron waves at the edges of a graphene crystal near charge neutrality. This is achieved by using superconducting interferometry in a graphene Josephson junction and reconstructing the spatial structure of conducting pathways using Fourier methods13. The observed edge currents arise from coherent guided-wave states, confined to the edge by band bending and transmitted as plane waves. As an electronic analogue of photon guiding in optical fibres, the observed states afford non-classical means for information transduction and processing at the nanoscale."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.07630v1.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v12 ... bal=remove

Its actually Bohm instead of Bohr. Sorry about that. They were both in the same article that I was paraphrasing from memory...

" The physicist David Bohm resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, with Einstein’s encouragement, and made clear that it did work, but it never caught on. (The theory is also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics.)"

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

Some sort of pilot wave or cumulative forces would be necessary.


Tunneling of atoms, nuclei and molecules
Received: date / Accepted: date
Abstract This is a brief review of few relevant topics on tunneling of composite particles and how
the coupling to intrinsic and external degrees of freedom affects tunneling probabilities. I discuss the
phenomena of resonant tunneling, different barriers seen by subsystems, damping of resonant tunneling
by level bunching and continuum effects due to particle dissociation.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.00074.pdf

The thing that frustrates me the most about reading all of these papers is that they speak in terms of probabilities. Its not probabilities, its knowing the mechanism to make it work.

If you know the mechanism then your probability automatically becomes 99.9999%

[webolife]

The thing that frustrates me the most about reading all of these papers is that they speak in terms of probabilities. Its not probabilities, its knowing the mechanism to make it work.

I agree with you on that point. It's not like we don't know that every particle exists in a unique field and averaging is needed to make sense of the mathematics, hence "probabilities." But it does get frustrating when probability is used as an excuse to avoid discussing the actual physical mechanism were looking for.

That said, we disagree on light action and its relation to kinetics. I say that light action causes motion, just as a force can cause an acceleration, or work to be done. So for me kinetics are the result of light action, but are not light action. FOr me a light action is not stuff moving/waving across space from source to observer. It doesn't make a lot of sense to speak of forces as moving, rather of forces moving other objects. This semantic issue occurs repeatedly in our discussion and there may be no way around it.