Kinetic energy hypothesis......

[webolife]

Maybe I'm still stuck in your semantics...
If gravity is a continuous "flow", what is flowing, and to where is it flowing, and what happens to it when it gets there?

Some other random thoughts:
It is certainly true that one "kinetic" object imparts its momentum to another as a conservation of energy phenomenon, minus energy lost to entropy.... but what if the primal action is the impulse, rather than the momentum, or what if the impulse and momentum are both primal? The initiating condition of creation or the assumption of a timeless universe would result in equivalent effects, ie. it cannot be determined by simply looking at the present motions in the universe how things started. Neither the BB nor Steady State view solve this inability.

[Webbman]

Maybe I'm still stuck in your semantics...
If gravity is a continuous "flow", what is flowing, and to where is it flowing, and what happens to it when it gets there?

Some other random thoughts:
It is certainly true that one "kinetic" object imparts its momentum to another as a conservation of energy phenomenon, minus energy lost to entropy.... but what if the primal action is the impulse, rather than the momentum, or what if the impulse and momentum are both primal? The initiating condition of creation or the assumption of a timeless universe would result in equivalent effects, ie. it cannot be determined by simply looking at the present motions in the universe how things started. Neither the BB nor Steady State view solve this inability.

The aether is flowing to density.

[upriver]

Maybe I'm still stuck in your semantics...
If gravity is a continuous "flow", what is flowing, and to where is it flowing, and what happens to it when it gets there?

Just based on the observable action of gravity, If you drop a ball the ball gains kinetic energy. It appears to be flowing towards the mass. When the ball hits the ground its kinetic energy is dissipated into the lattice.

The gravity field gives kinetic energy to the mass... The masses accelerate.

If gravity was an emanation from the lattice and mass absorbed gravity it would act LeSagian...

Some other random thoughts:
It is certainly true that one "kinetic" object imparts its momentum to another as a conservation of energy phenomenon, minus energy lost to entropy.... but what if the primal action is the impulse, rather than the momentum, or what if the impulse and momentum are both primal? The initiating condition of creation or the assumption of a timeless universe would result in equivalent effects, ie. it cannot be determined by simply looking at the present motions in the universe how things started. Neither the BB nor Steady State view solve this inability.

"In classical mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kg · m/s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object, quantified in kilogram-meters per second. It is dimensionally equivalent to impulse, the product of force and time, quantified in newton-seconds. Newton's second law of motion states that the change in linear momentum of a body is equal to the net impulse acting on it. "

Impulse is whats being delivered to the mass to do work(kinetic energy) and momentum is what the mass has after the work is done to it(kinetic energy)...
Looks to be the same stuff...

[webolife]

Your gravity field = my primal potential energy field of universal centropic pressure... mostly
But your "impulse" keeps coming in [b]before[/b] the kinetic energy "appears", in agreement with my view of potential energy...


The centropic pressure field includes both gravity and light, and also voltage, charge, and nuclear force.
Does your lattice compare?

[upriver]

What is my motivation for this foray? Wheres my Jetsons Life??

In trying to develop a self consistent theory of energy, gravity as it is thought of now, has certain problems.

The current models are Quantum gravity with gravitons of some sort and Curved Space time.

With curved space time the biggest question is, how does space know to curve, what comes from mass to tell space that it is there(might as well have gravitons)?
How does "curved" 3D space energetically provide a force to do "work" on the attracted mass?

Curved Space time is energetically inconsistent with a unified energy theory where everything has an input or an output.
Energy flows from point a to point b.

My ideas with gravity provide that consistency where gravity is tied into the energy of the universe..

My Kinetic energy Hypothesis is closer to Quantum gravity.

When work is done on the ball to lift it up in a gravity field, once the work stops, its kinetic energy goes to zero in the upward direction.
If you now let the ball go, gravity provides an acceleration in the downward direction.
There is no negative work involved. They are 2 separate events...

This is more energetically consistent than a Unified Field Theory.
Fields provide kinetic energy to objects. So a field theory is 1 removed from causality..

Electric fields provide kinetic energy to charged particles(electricity).
Gravity provides Kinetic energy to Neutral Particles.
Magnetic fields provide Kinetic energy to certain particles that have both properties..
So to consistently examine energy transfer which is the root of all motion, it is obvious that there is a level that consists of Kinetic energy for these fields to draw from..
Motion is the root of all life and process that is the universe..

Hence my motivation...

So for this reason potential energy doesnt exist. Even though the equations are consistent within the closed box where you are performing the analysis, they are not consistent with energy flow across the universe..
The kinetic energy added to the ball when it is moved is the same type that gravity provides, but it is not the same moment of work...
Once the ball has stopped and the energy is dissipated, then you must start from zero and now invoke gravity as you let the ball drop...
The energy paths are different.

So to truly understand what is going on I think that energy path analysis with the idea that Kinetic energy comes from an aether like substrate via fields and dissipates into said substrate via massive lattices....

[upriver]

Your gravity field = my primal potential energy field of universal centropic pressure... mostly
But your "impulse" keeps coming in [b]before[/b] the kinetic energy "appears", in agreement with my view of potential energy...

The centropic pressure field includes both gravity and light, and also voltage, charge, and nuclear force.
Does your lattice compare?

The impulse is kinetic energy. When it is pure kinetic energy in its "aetheric" form, it is massless and superluminal(gravitational field). When it interacts with mass, it does work and causes velocity in a free mass.

The 3 fields -Electric, Gravity and Magnetic- are the basis of everything moving.

Voltage is just the amplitude of a wave form.

Charge is a vector wave on a standing wave particle that interacts with electric fields.

Nuclear bonds and for that matter any atomic or molecular bond, are kinetic energy. My guess is that bonding is some kind of resonance in the adjacent standing wave pattern.

The particulate lattice supports the kinetic standing wave substrate that is what we call the massive Universe.
The background sea of kinetic energy propagates through this mobile particulate substrate and is the motion of the universe.
The lattice which consists of massless 10-^50 sized particles allows for superluminal information transfer via pure kinetic energy(Tunneling and Entanglement, evanescent waves).

[webolife]

Lots of ideas, terminology and hopefulness in your claims, but I simply can't understand what you're saying.
I'm once again, and finally, leaving this thread.
Hope o engage with you again elsewhere perhaps.

[upriver]

Lots of ideas, terminology and hopefulness in your claims, but I simply can't understand what you're saying.
I'm once again, and finally, leaving this thread.
Hope o engage with you again elsewhere perhaps.

This is all very straight forward based on standard engineering and standard physics. There is nothing here that is "made up'. Well maybe the aether, which is based on Teslas work.
The only difference is that kinetic energy is separated from mass...

And as you can see there is no such thing in reality as potential energy. Its all dynamic.. Causality is strictly followed..

All motion is caused by kinetic energy which is imparted to mass by fields.. No mystery there.
There is no question that kinetic energy is transferred from one object to another, unless you believe that the kinetic energy is somehow stored in the object..

Read carefully what I said. Go look up the physics definitions of the words I use...

Understand what WORK really means...

[seasmith]

nothing here that is "made up'. Well maybe the aether, which is based on Teslas work.

No disrespect intended here Upriver, but much of the above sounds more like a misappropriation of Tesla's work, by the Correa Bros.
They may have sold a lot of books and courses or whatever, with their conflation of popular theories and erudite sounding jargon; but they haven't really done much for the science,
in my humble estimation.

http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/Eng ... ometry.php

[upriver]

nothing here that is "made up'. Well maybe the aether, which is based on Teslas work.

No disrespect intended here Upriver, but much of the above sounds more like a misappropriation of Tesla's work, by the Correa Bros.
They may have sold a lot of books and courses or whatever, with their conflation of popular theories and erudite sounding jargon; but they haven't really done much for the science,
in my humble estimation.

http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/Eng ... ometry.php

From reading the Paulo and Alexandras publications, I learned the value of a consistent system of understanding the universe. Their system is much like any other system that is developed like that. Sometimes you have to invent new ways of thinking of things or describing operations that standard physics does not address.
Paulo does not believe in certain aspects of the universe so I found it necessary to hypothesize a model that included the mechanics that allows for those aspects of the universe.

How could it possibly be misappropriation if you are using an agreed upon description of the workings of the universe. An attitude like that is detrimental to science because of its ego...

"Paramahamsa Tewari’s search for the nature of reality has led him from study of the ancient Vedas of India to the formulation of Space Vortex Theory. It is a new theory unifying the relationship between space, mass, inertia, light, and gravity. Starting with principles described in the Vedic texts, Tewari was able to delineate a mathematical model that explains the words of Tesla when he said:

“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.”

Motion and Kinetic energy as described 5,000 years ago... Civilization has occurred on this planet several times. And they knew stuff we dont...

Notice that my "system" uses standard physics as much as possible. A bit of it is, in a certain way, just semantics in that causality is introduced into the jargon of standard physics, that is based on the hierarchy of a Kinetic Energy Aether.

I have however introduced the concept of "Moment of Work". This describes the measurement of time when work is done between moments of zero work. When energy input goes to zero, thats when the next Energy Path analysis begins..

People still dont understand the value of an energetic analysis vs a geometric or space time or something like that. All of the pieces of the universe should fit together. And the piping is "energy" transfer...

Motion is caused by kinetic energy... EVERYTHING is in motion.

Here is Tewari Deriving the Structure of the Electron from the Massless Chargeless kinetic energy aether...

http://www.tewari.org/uploads/3/9/2/2/3 ... ectron.pdf

[Solar]

How could it possibly be misappropriation if you are using an agreed upon description of the workings of the universe. An attitude like that is detrimental to science because of its ego...

Some thoughts:

I also study Aetherometry as you know. I agree with Seasmith though, in that there does seem to be a problem in your dialogs and I think it stems from a fundamental problem. There is no such thing as “an agreed upon description of the workings of the universe.”

Your post references the following bodies of work: Original contributions of Paulo and Alexandria Correa (which includes the efforts of W. Reich, Harold Aspden, and N. Tesla. Also Paramahamsa Tewari and Vedic influences are referenced.

Yes, it is possible to get a ‘sense’ of some central themes that may run through each body of work such as conveyed via the quotes cited from P. Tewari and N. Tesla. However, each of the aforementioned works reject some of the interpretive aspects of “standard physics”. The qualitative hypothesis known as the Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology does this also. One of the central themes of each of the above is that The Universe is eternal however, some of Its manifestations may be temporary. Because of the ebb and flow of those temporary constructs the “standard physics” doesn't consider any condition as perpetual. This the opposite of one of its cardinal rules i.e. 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.'

A contradiction is then presented.

‘Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

How can there be such a thing as “an agreed upon description of the workings of the universe” when apparently “standard physics” doesn't even agree with itself? I can see your efforts are noble but such an effort is going to have to repair those types of contradictions in "standard physics" before it can converge it with other works. That is a huge job.

Electrodynamic Theory is bereft of including Tesla Radiation and has its very own internal problems as pointed out by Harold Aspden:

Electrodynamics was founded upon experiments confined to the interaction involving an electron currents carried around a closed wire circuit and experiment shows that textbook doctrine cannot cope with strange energy phenomena seen in plasma research where heavy ions are involved.

Is there an aether medium permeating all space or not? Textbook knowledge assures students that the aether has been eradicated, thanks to the doctrines proposed by Albert Einstein. So, if the aether is feeding energy into those plasma discharges studied by the Correas, that cannot be accepted and it is deemed appropriate to look elsewhere for our future energy resources.- Harold Aspden: A Problem in Plasma Science

To the same extent “gravity only” cosmological interpretations often neglect electrical forces. Without someone having studied Aetherometry trying to directly fuse some of the principles that the Correas, H. Aspden, P. Tewari, N. Tesla, W. Reich uses to unwind quite a lot of the exemplified disjointedness of “standard physics”, even at the fundamental level of trying to explain what “kinetic energy” is - or isn't - just doesn't work.

[upriver]

How could it possibly be misappropriation if you are using an agreed upon description of the workings of the universe. An attitude like that is detrimental to science because of its ego...

Some thoughts:

I also study Aetherometry as you know. I agree with Seasmith though, in that there does seem to be a problem in your dialogs and I think it stems from a fundamental problem. There is no such thing as “an agreed upon description of the workings of the universe.”

Your post references the following bodies of work: Original contributions of Paulo and Alexandria Correa (which includes the efforts of W. Reich, Harold Aspden, and N. Tesla. Also Paramahamsa Tewari and Vedic influences are referenced.

Yes, it is possible to get a ‘sense’ of some central themes that may run through each body of work such as conveyed via the quotes cited from P. Tewari and N. Tesla. However, each of the aforementioned works reject some of the interpretive aspects of “standard physics”. The qualitative hypothesis known as the Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology does this also. One of the central themes of each of the above is that The Universe is eternal however, some of Its manifestations may be temporary. Because of the ebb and flow of those temporary constructs the “standard physics” doesn't consider any condition as perpetual. This the opposite of one of its cardinal rules i.e. 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.'

A contradiction is then presented.

‘Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

How can there be such a thing as “an agreed upon description of the workings of the universe” when apparently “standard physics” doesn't even agree with itself? I can see your efforts are noble but such an effort is going to have to repair those types of contradictions in "standard physics" before it can converge it with other works. That is a huge job.

There are the words of standard physics and the observations. The math supports the words, the ideas.

So mostly reconciliation is building the correct framework to support the observations for all "physics" in a consistent manner.
Like the equations behind the concept of work. They all work out for the transfer of energy to create a force.
But the context is not aligned with the appropriate next context. You must choose a system that allows all of the pieces to fit together.

The concept Moment of Work seems to allow this to work..

I more or less was trying to indicate that I agree with Tesla and Tewari in their description of the Vedas description of the Aether.

The framework that I have chosen based on this is the Kinetic/Motion is primary and have not been let down yet...

Electrodynamic Theory is bereft of including Tesla Radiation and has its very own internal problems as pointed out by Harold Aspden:

Electrodynamics was founded upon experiments confined to the interaction involving an electron currents carried around a closed wire circuit and experiment shows that textbook doctrine cannot cope with strange energy phenomena seen in plasma research where heavy ions are involved.

Is there an aether medium permeating all space or not? Textbook knowledge assures students that the aether has been eradicated, thanks to the doctrines proposed by Albert Einstein. So, if the aether is feeding energy into those plasma discharges studied by the Correas, that cannot be accepted and it is deemed appropriate to look elsewhere for our future energy resources.- Harold Aspden: A Problem in Plasma Science

To the same extent “gravity only” cosmological interpretations often neglect electrical forces. Without someone having studied Aetherometry trying to directly fuse some of the principles that the Correas, H. Aspden, P. Tewari, N. Tesla, W. Reich uses to unwind quite a lot of the exemplified disjointedness of “standard physics”, even at the fundamental level of trying to explain what “kinetic energy” is - or isn't - just doesn't work.

I think it can be made simple if the correct frame work is used.

So as I have said before the deepest level that I think we can get to is saying that we dont know where Kinetic energy came from.
We dont know how order happens.
We dont know where matter(massless) came from but I think one could make another level to the model to handle some of these constructs....

[upriver]

I think I have come up with a testable model of gravity using KEH - The Kinetic Energy Hypothesis.

There are there three parts to how this should work if I use Moment of Work analysis.
There is always going to be an input and an output. You just have to figure out what they are.

Part one:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that its accepted that space is filled with moving energy of some sort..

The one property that I am going to take advantage of is gradient.
If you could put a energy suction in the middle of space there would be a gradient from some point D to the suction point O.

Part two:
Gravitational acceleration between two objects is theorized to be Internal or External.
I'm going for the external case.
We are going to use the energy of space as gravity.

Part three:
The Absorber.
Every atom on the earth moves. It is said that electron moves around the nucleus in a probability cloud or whatever.

I love this subReddit . I cant tell if they actually answer the question of why doesn't the electron stop orbiting..
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/com ... of_energy/

Where does it get this energy?? From the aether/space energy that they are part of.

Gravity is the gradient from all of the atoms on the Earth or gravitational body, absorbing the energy of the space. The absorption creates a gradient of kinetic energy.

In my model the energy of space is kinetic energy so that leads to a gradient of kinetic energy which, when interacting with a free object causes motion as the atoms use the energy for bonds, vibration, heat, acceleration, etc...

To Derive I should be able to take the energy of space, the energy used by an atom, and come up with the gravitational force...

[Solar]

Every now and again hints do arise:

Artificial ball lightning in a vodka bottle

Sometimes it seems that physics has left its purpose to a no man's land where actual curiosity still exist. Unfortunately, I get the impression that the cry for "new physics" is an empty one.

[webolife]

Upriver,
I agree with most of the principles you are trying to describe, just still sorting through your jargon.
I agree that "energy" is derived in some way from the underlying fabric or matrix of space. I call it pressure, but the dynamics are probably equivalent. Rather than use "suction" point, say "sink", a better operative term as there is no sucky "attractive" mechanism known to physics. Therefore the pressure can be inferred to be external, I call it the centropic pressure field. Not sure exactly how you are using the term "absorption"; however if I look straight on down any vector [let's call it Ray A] of force [in reality a finite vector set acting on a finite area, therefore radiant "beam" of pressure is more appropriate] that impacts my eye, body, or other sensor of the field, the "gradient" of pressure is detected at angles measured transversely with respect to that "central line" [Ray A], out to 30 deg or no more than 45 deg, beyond which point the geometry nullifies any effect those gradient vectors have on my peripheral sensory location. To elicit said gradient one need only confine the perception of those rays to a point of focus which is of course in line with our Ray A. In the perception of the color gradient [spectrum], this is done through a pinhole [or slit device for convenience]. For gravitation, a pendulum is handy, as the hypercycloidal arc it traces can be used to analyze the PE/KE gradient; and it is common practice for engineers to consider the 45 degree angular limit for stress at any particular point. Bucky Fuller was an uncommon architect for his understanding of the pressure gradients of structural design. So in my synopsis of the characteristics of the "energy of space" I see two factors: centropic pressure, and mometum, which necessarily becomes angular momentum in the presence of a plurality of objects. Therefore the motions of any object can be described in terms of the "gravitational" potential wrt the system centroid, and it's tangential motion in wrt the other object[s] in the field.