Kinetic energy hypothesis......

[upriver]

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.

Youre saying Kinetics. I am saying Kinetic energy.
The energy that generates the force and does the work... Kinetic energy is transferred from mass to mass....
A force occurs when kinetic energy is expressed from one mass to another. Every transaction requires some kind of energy to generate a force or do work... Especially if there is a pilot wave or cumulative forces...
The energy moves across space and generates a force when it encounters a mass... No mass - no force and you get superluminal travel...

Kinetic energy is common across all of physics...

So what would light be carrying to cause motion? Light is thought of as having no (rest)mass.
But it does act on mass. What would light be made out of to cause motion.
We know that the evanescent field that is derived from light causes motion. Unless you are saying that the evanescent field is light. Which I disagree with.

I am saying that light carries the same thing that an electric field, gravity and a magnetic field carries.
All of those fields cause motion under certain circumstances. Gravity acts on any mass, electricity acts on charged particles and magnetism act on magnetic materials.
But for sure evanescent fields carry kinetic energy, act upon mass and they are not light.

Fields have no mass and for all intensive purposes we dont have a "field Viewer".

[seasmith]

Upriver,
Go back and read your first post my friend, you were off to a good start there.
In this last post however, you are conflating, confusing and just making a pudding of everything possible.

[You in blue, me in black]:

Kinetic energy is transferred from mass to mass...
How?

The energy moves across space and generates a force when it encounters a mass... No mass - no force and you get superluminal travel..
How does you "energy" move across space? And do you have a problem with a "superluminal" transmission of energy?

We know that the evanescent field that is derived from light causes motion...
Can you define an "evanescent 'field'" ?

Light...gravity... mass...
magnetism... electric and magnetic fields... particles....waves....etc...
With ~Light, Gravity and Mass, you have three/quarters of the primal quadrature, now what could be missing to complete the circle and get back to go?

Forget for now fields, particles and waves: they are just temporal energetic forms.
Forget electricity for now. As has been explained in this forum many times, ALL the many various electric phases and manifestations are just modes of energetic transformations. Elemental Charge being transferred or transmitted, transmogrified, pick your verb.

Electricity is the common (electric) Ground to the primal quadrature. The universal mode or means of connection between and among the four prime states of your rubric, "Energy".

No meta-physics involved at all here, that is subject for another thread and another forum,
please.

[upriver]

Upriver,
Go back and read your first post my friend, you were off to a good start there.
In this last post however, you are conflating, confusing and just making a pudding of everything possible.

[You in blue, me in black]:

Kinetic energy is transferred from mass to mass...
How?

On a macroscopic level if you play billiards you see the balls rebound off of each other, with the energy transferred to the stationary ball following this equation:
http://www.real-world-physics-problems. ... iards.html

But the bottom line is that kinetic energy is transferred from one ball to the other. No one disputes that.
At the microscopic level the balls dont actually touch. Forces generated by fields extend outward from the atom making up the ball. These fields interact and transfer said kinetic energy from one ball to the other.
How does the field transfer kinetic energy at the point of contact is the subject of study right now but the Momentum of evanescent fields paper is a good example of controlling the transfer of kinetic energy from a light beam to a MIE particle...

Notice that after the balls have transferred the kinetic energy they revert back to their original mass(energy) with no change. At that point it becomes apparent that mass can hold kinetic energy.
But at zero velocity .87c worth of kinetic energy is not stored in that mass. If you accelerate a mass to .87c its said to be twice as massive energetically speaking. If you return that mass to zero velocity that kinetic energy is not stored in the mass.

The energy moves across space and generates a force when it encounters a mass... No mass - no force and you get superluminal travel..
How does you "energy" move across space? And do you have a problem with a "superluminal" transmission of energy?

To be more precise, kinetic energy travels through the massless lattice of Planck sized particles that make up the aether. Similar to a wave moving through water. At the atomic level nothing actually touches so what actually moves through the water and provides the energy for the force to do work at the other end? The particles dont travel. They transfer kinetic energy from particle to particle. That gets transferred and does work at the other end.

We know that the evanescent field that is derived from light causes motion...
Can you define an "evanescent 'field'" ?

Simply put its a standing wave on the surface (near field) that sums to zero energetically but actually carries energy as shown by experiments. However I am taking it to mean any energetic surface wave. It turns out that even though you dont see the "field or wave" it still can transmit energy(momentum = speed with a vector). And even though it drops off you can say that from entanglement that the prisms "must" have connected evanescent fields(supposition)...
So light transmits kinetic energy to a particle and light is considered an EM wave so on and so forth.. Pick a side to chew from..
Radio waves transmit kinetic energy. Everything is about motion.

Light...gravity... mass...
magnetism... electric and magnetic fields... particles....waves....etc...
With ~Light, Gravity and Mass, you have three/quarters of the primal quadrature, now what could be missing to complete the circle and get back to go?

Primal quadrature? I am just going by what I see. I might not see everything but I am also not giving some preconceived name to where I should expect something else to be there thats not... It is what it is...

Forget for now fields, particles and waves: they are just temporal energetic forms.
Forget electricity for now. As has been explained in this forum many times, ALL the many various electric phases and manifestations are just modes of energetic transformations. Elemental Charge being transferred or transmitted, transmogrified, pick your verb.

Everything is motion. Nothing is static. That is the best way to store information. In an ever evolving field.

Charge is just there to keep things organized.
Charge is corralled by electromagnetism. A charge by itself does nothing. Kinetic energy is what allows the electron carrying the charge to do work(generate a force). Charge allows an electric field to act upon the particle...
The actual kinetic energy is carried in the electric field surrounding the electron.

Electricity is the common (electric) Ground to the primal quadrature. The universal mode or means of connection between and among the four prime states of your rubric, "Energy".

Electricity is composed of momentum and charge. - J Clerk Maxwell
It is a microscopic method of moving kinetic energy around.
Take a Generator spinning being spun by a turbine.
The kinetic energy of the spinning rotor is transferred to the field coils by the magnetic field.
The magnetic field causes "the electrons to move".
These electrons move the kinetic energy down the wire to the light bulb where the electrons in the filament are excited and give off photons that are received by your eye.
Kinetic energy does the work.

Ground is the aether or universe around you as evidenced by 1 wire transmission systems.

No meta-physics involved at all here, that is subject for another thread and another forum,
please.

This is all standard physics.

The only thing that people consider metaphysical is when I separate mass from kinetic energy.
Or when I say that a massless matter aether or substrate is required for superluminal transfer of energy because physics shows that massive objects cant go faster than light.
But thats only because we dont believe in massless matter. There is no A priori reason why there cannot be massless matter.
If you think about it thats what would make a superluminal aether signaling system possible to fit all of the observations that we see...
There are plenty of examples of superluminal operations. If you believe in UFOs or think that any of the footage of UFO is real then they have figured out how to negate inertia.
You have to be able to negate inertia to have a FTL massive matter spaceship.

A description of the universe has to be able to account for any kind of phenomena that you can think of and some that you cant. It also means the universe has been and will be here forever as far as were concerned...

[seasmith]

Upriver wrote:

To be more precise, kinetic energy travels through the massless lattice of Planck sized particles that make up the aether.

And what is it that is between these "particles" ?

Primal quadrature? I am just going by what I see.

You've just put a name to the fourth quadrant of a primal quadrature.
Can you think of any energy state more prime than Light, Aether, Gravity and Matter?

Btw, those "evanescent waves" that you can "see", are more than just "surface" disturbances.
It is significant that their induced wave motions decay exponentially, unlike electro-magnetic wave forms.
And yes, all electricity is motion.

[upriver]

Upriver wrote:To be more precise, kinetic energy travels through the massless lattice of Planck sized particles that make up the aether.

And what is it that is between these "particles" ?

Nothing? Truly nothing. What we consider space is really the aether lattice. The "space" between particle is so small that we would never encounter it in most humans existence... Below 10^-50 meters. A Yogi or Seer might be able to see that small...
Orders of magnitude (length)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of ... ailed_list

Primal quadrature? I am just going by what I see.

You've just put a name to the fourth quadrant of a primal quadrature.

That may be so but I dont think thats what standard physics calls it...

Can you think of any energy state more prime than Light, Aether, Gravity and Matter?

Yes. Kinetic energy makes up gravitational acceleration; gravitational fields accelerate mass, they impart kinetic energy to mass....
Light is Kinetic energy without mass; it only gains mass and an independent existence from kinetic energy(momentum); the "addition" of kinetic energy.
Matter is primary but mass is because of kinetic energy(next level up from the aether). i.e. everything is waves and vectors in the primary medium. Mass is probably due to motional interference with the background of the Aether.

Massless matter makes up the part of the Aether and kinetic energy makes up the motion that drives life.

Just think, if you take away all of the kinetic energy from a particulate lattice. It becomes motionless.
It has no capabilities of having a process universe. Consciousness is structured kinetic energy. It exists in the massless matter matrix. Thats why they cant pin down what consciousness is.

The 3 things that I think are unknowable at this level of the universe are Order, Matter and Motion.
At the next level down you may have insight into the creation of matter, how to add motion and how to bring it to order...

[webolife]

In any transaction energy is always exchanged...

I think this may be an area where semantics are blocking comprehension. It sounds to me as if you are equating kinetic energy with momentum. If these are or are not synonyms in your view, please elucidate.

I would say "transformed" rather than exchanged, perhaps too subtle of a distinction?
We may be seeing the same operations from an opposite viewpoint, for example:
1. You might say an impulse is the result of the transfer of momentum, where I see the impulse as primal.
2. I still see KE as a property of mass in motion, whereas you see KE as a separate entity from mass, imparting motion to it.
3. You probably think of light as an emission from a light source, where I see it as a pressure toward the light source centroid, analogous [and perhaps homologous] with gravity, and EMF [electric potential, voltage].

[upriver]

In any transaction energy is always exchanged...

I think this may be an area where semantics are blocking comprehension. It sounds to me as if you are equating kinetic energy with momentum. If these are or are not synonyms in your view, please elucidate.

When speaking of the translation of massive matter the terms velocity, momentum, speed, motion, vibration etc., are variously used to describe the various properties of the translation.

In physics momentum is mass and velocity, velocity is speed with a vector. Speed is a direct measure of the kinetic energy associated with the mass at that moment in time. I like using Joules and electron volts.
More precisely "Kinetic energy" that is expressed as speed, is the result of the kinetic aethers(the field) interaction with massive matter.
For example an electric field accelerates an electron.
When you have to charges, a positive and negative charge, the charges dont wear out. An electric field doesnt wear out or turn off. Typically the charges recombine which I think means the share a common resonance....
Assuming you could just clamp the charges in place.
The electric field continues to provide kinetic energy to any particle dropped in it.

I would say "transformed" rather than exchanged, perhaps too subtle of a distinction?

I think its all the same type of "energy", it causes mass to move. But it does it under differing sets of circumstances using differing mechanisms, macroscopic and microscopic..

So there really no transformation of energy, there are different interactions because its a different Vector, or Mechanism of transferring kinetic energy to a mass. As I have argued previously, mass does not store kinetic energy at zero speed.

We may be seeing the same operations from an opposite viewpoint, for example:
1. You might say an impulse is the result of the transfer of momentum, where I see the impulse as primal.
2. I still see KE as a property of mass in motion, whereas you see KE as a separate entity from mass, imparting motion to it.

An Impulse is a pulse of kinetic energy interacting with a mass. " the change in momentum is equal to the product of the average force and duration. "

"Work is closely related to energy. The work-energy principle states that an increase in the kinetic energy of a rigid body is caused by an equal amount of positive work done on the body by the resultant force acting on that body. Conversely, a decrease in kinetic energy is caused by an equal amount of negative work done by the resultant force.

From Newton's second law, it can be shown that work on a free (no fields), rigid (no internal degrees of freedom) body, is equal to the change in kinetic energy of the velocity and rotation of that body,"

Kinetic energy causes the mass to move. When the mass is moving it has the properties of momentum, speed, total kinetic energy vs mass kinetic energy , so on.. Kinetic energy does the work.
Kinetic energy is transferred from mass to mass when collisions occur. Kinetic energy is the water in the bucket of the bucket brigade.

3. You probably think of light as an emission from a light source, where I see it as a pressure toward the light source centroid, analogous [and perhaps homologous] with gravity, and EMF [electric potential, voltage].

I would say roughly that light is an impulse of kinetic energy traveling through the kinetic aether that only becomes what we think of as light when it interacts with an electron in your eye... I also think there is communication before what we call a photon is launched.

This implies that there is a granularity to light that is finer than photons..

Light can provide momentum to mass but it seems to only interact with electrons?
Whereas the kinetic energy from gravity(field) works on all mass.
The kinetic energy from an electric field works only on charged particles.
Magnetic field works on certain types of mass and charged particles.


There are various types of fields and I dont typically think of light as a field even though it comes from the kinetic field.

[webolife]

OK, well... keep working on that and I'll come back to it later when I've had a chance to ponder it a bit more. You're using the language of physics in a non-standard way, which really confuses what you're trying to say.
I can't follow your semantics, and it's doing no good to keep going over the same disagreements.

[upriver]

OK, well... keep working on that and I'll come back to it later when I've had a chance to ponder it a bit more. You're using the language of physics in a non-standard way, which really confuses what you're trying to say.
I can't follow your semantics, and it's doing no good to keep going over the same disagreements.

If you can point exactly which part is non standard maybe I figure out a more precise way of saying it.

Here is what Khan Academy teaches as far as work energy..
"Alternatively, one can say that the change in kinetic energy is equal to the net work done on an object or system."
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/phy ... tic-energy

The important element that I am trying to establish is a hierarchy of all of the things that we observe.
The idea of kinetic energy in its various forms shows up in everything. The rocket ship burning fuel is burning "atomic bonds" of kinetic energy to provide thrust.
I am working on a diagram...

[webolife]

Well, I'll try again...
You are using kinetic energy as an entity that acts upon matter but is separate from it. I see kinetic energy as a condition in which matter in motion is found. The "change in kinetic energy" is a mathematical description of the difference of states of an object from initial to final after a force has moved it across a distance. "Burning 'atomic bonds' of kinetic energy" makes no physical sense to me, as "burning" is simply a description of an energy transformation, and "bonds" are a description of potential or stored energy. The potential energy stored in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy which is measured as the rocket goes into motion.

[upriver]

Well, I'll try again...
You are using kinetic energy as an entity that acts upon matter but is separate from it. I see kinetic energy as a condition in which matter in motion is found.

Wiki Defines energy "In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms.[1] "

"A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system. The changes in the physical properties of a system can be used to describe its transformations or evolutions between its momentary states. Physical properties are often referred to as observables."

I agree with the standard definition. However my point of departure is that Kinetic exists as its own "energy".
Kinetic energy is the Primary energy. And everything else is derived from Kinetic energy, the energy of motion.
All systems exist to transfer Kinetic energy from place to place.
All EM, Light and matter with mass are just different manifestations of Kinetic energy... Electricity is Charge and Momentum. It transfers Kinetic energy from the input to the output...

The "change in kinetic energy" is a mathematical description of the difference of states of an object from initial to final after a force has moved it across a distance. "Burning 'atomic bonds' of kinetic energy" makes no physical sense to me, as "burning" is simply a description of an energy transformation, and "bonds" are a description of potential or stored energy. The potential energy stored in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy which is measured as the rocket goes into motion.

I just dont agree with "Potential Energy".

Everything is dynamic. Bonds are dynamic if you consider that they are part of an energy system. You just have to find the point of connection.

Typically when you talk about burning its some kind of reaction where the molecular makeup of the constituents changes by bond rearrangement...

Try to find a definition of exactly what a Atomic or molecular bond is made of. What is the Strong Nuclear force??
What material is a bond made of?? It absorbs and emits energy. It never wears out.

It is my contention that bonds are kinetic energy in a standing wave that is somehow connected to the aether..
This is where the energy to do work actually comes from during the burning operation.

So I was just kinda having some word fun.

[upriver]

The Thread of Life.
Its one of those things that come up in the conversation that takes place in between slot machine cycles at 3 in the morning.
You get to talking about the meaning of life and how things work. I think also that I have a tendency to bring that out of people because they see how open I am to unusual phenomena.
I am eating and talking to my friend and she tells me how a friend of hers told her the when she got pregnant a golden column of light(maybe like the silver cord), but I don’t get the feeling that it was a column, more like a golden tube about 2 inches in diameter, that came through the ceiling while she was lying on the bed and touched her stomach. She knew at that moment that she was pregnant.

I have also heard stories about the moment of death where a silver thread or column comes out of the body at the moment of death.
http://www.near-death.com/science/resea ... -cord.html
http://www.near-death.com/science/resea ... sions.html
So what happens between the time that the silver cord breaks and the golden cord comes down and touches the belly of a woman about to be pregnant??

Has anybody else talked to any women that have seen the golden cord of pregnancy??

How does this fit in Kinetic energy Hypothesis??

Well obviously there is another layer to the universe that we are not capable of viewing with our instruments.
But certain people can see the manifestations.
Baron Von Reichenbach talked about a flowing component to his observations.

All I can say is - Cool!!

[upriver]

Consciousness is structured Kinetic energy. Life is motion. Even Tesla said this...
Consciousness exists in the field around and through the body. It is not "in" the brain.
You can call it the electric field since it interacts with the brain electrically... Electric fields have the effect of causing motion. And they are reputed to be made of "Virtual Photons"..
Through observation I believe fields to be Kinetic energy...
The brain is an interface to Consciousness via the Microtubules that contain the London Paired Electrons that move due to field motions.
This is actually based on Stuarts Hammeroffs work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0hU6CZok34
They found that micro tubules contain response triggers like a computer but they could not pin down the causative agent of the patterns.
A statistical analysis will never tell them what Consciousness is made out of..

My Kinetic energy hypothesis posits a Kinetic Aether that is massless which is the "field", and the supporting energy structure for Consciousness.. All electricity really does is carry Kinetic energy at a microscopic level...
Everything is about motion and the process.. A massless aether allows for Superluminal motions to support a number of observed phenomena...
This whole construct actually allows for Entanglement, Tunneling, Telekinesis, Magic, Consciousness and all sorts of StarTrek phenomena based on some simple modifications to our current understanding of physics.

Consciousness was around before the massive universe...

[webolife]

My Kinetic energy hypothesis posits a Kinetic Aether that is massless which is the "field", and the supporting energy structure for Consciousness..

OK, I'd call that the geometric matrix... massless [perhaps immaterial?]

All electricity really does is carry Kinetic energy at a microscopic level...

OK

Everything is about motion and the process...

OK, angular momentum and centropic pressure, exigent and logical results of a finite universe of moving bodies...

A massless aether allows for Superluminal motions to support a number of observed phenomena...

OK, I'd go so far as to say instantaneous action at a distance due to the interconnectivity of the geometric matrix...

This whole construct actually allows for Entanglement, Tunneling, Telekinesis, Magic, Consciousness and all sorts of StarTrek phenomena based on some simple modifications to our current understanding of physics.

Entanglement is exigent, tunneling is vortical motion that combines angular momentum with centropic pressure...
Telekinesis? Magic? StarTrek phenomena? Can't really go with that...

Consciousness was around before the massive universe...

Yes, design precludes designer...

[upriver]

Its because of a mistake made in the description of gravity.
Example: Gravity doesn't stop working or flowing when the object stops accelerating at the contact of a gravitational surface.
When you walk up a ladder you dont bring up a cup of gravitational liquid. There is no such thing as gravitational potential, which is just bookkeeping.

Gravity is a dynamic flow that never stops.
Probably a field providing kinetic energy to the object under influence meaning that gravity could be thought of as a form of kinetic energy...
Brant

Brant Ra shared his post.
Nov 03, 2016 12:25pm
Yep, energy never goes negative.... If you gravitationally accelerate an object you are adding energy from the field(kinetic). If you move an object you are adding kinetic energy. The work is being done by another object.
If you walk up a ladder with a ball you are expending energy. The gravitational acceleration on the ball has never changed. The potential energy has not changed. Only the motion of the ball has changed. ?
So it always additive or zero...

Because gravity is a flow.
When you drop the ball you are adding more gravitational energy, not using potential energy, that dissipates when it hits the ground because it the same thing. Its all Kinetic energy just applied to different objects.

The next question? Are all these different properties really the result of the different objects properties in absorption of and transfer of energy???