Kinetic energy hypothesis......

[upriver]

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.

Kinetic energy derived from the aether/background of space is delivered as kinetic energy by fields to massive matter...

And the end result is that some kind of work is done, a force delivers an impulse...

Rather than use "suction" point, say "sink", a better operative term as there is no sucky "attractive" mechanism known to physics.

I 100% agree... Sink was actually the term I was looking for..

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.

Momentum - the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and Velocity.
Velocity - the Speed of something in a given direction, has a vector.
Speed - In everyday use and in kinematics, the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity (the rate of change of its position); it is thus a scalar quantity.[1]

We get down to the scalar(singular) quantity. Speed is directly related to how much kinetic energy a mass has, in Joules. The speed of a kinetic impulse is the speed of gravity, the Longitudinal Electrical force and evanescent waves... Speed is is a direct measure of energy.
Vectors complicate things. They are necessary when you are talking objects at relative directions and speeds...|
When I am talking about the kinetic aether, momentum doesnt mean anything because there is no mass, only matter speed is close to infinite in that medium..

Probably a more accurate term than absorption is resonance.
When the main diameter of the ray is in resonance with the receiver at the end of motion so that maximum energy is transferred....

The pressure is a constant flow of kinetic energy, not static pressure but dynamic.

One important property of the kinetic energy is that it is massless vs inertial matter in our energy level of the universe. This allows for FTL information transfer....

[Solar]

Web

I’ve been meaning to ask how the “Pressure” of the Unified Field, or Centropic Pressure Field, comes about. It seems that such a gradient would require some form of steady continuous emission to induce this feature. Particulates (or reasoning from the “ray “and its reciprocation with respect to the eye) induce an anti-centroidal “Pressure” currently recognized as the ability of quanta to ‘radiate’ their respective emissions.

“Frequency” can ‘act’ as though a “Pressure” and be interpreted as such. as of late, I think I feel more satisfied to consider your “Pressure” relation as Frequency differentiations of the centropic pressure field mediated by the presence of “matter”. This, to such extent that by Frequency the presence of matter ‘reconfigures’ the original “primal potential energy field of universal centropic pressure” to then induce the effects observed as “gravity and light, and also voltage, charge”.

In terms of Frequency I suspect that there would be an aspect of The Centropic Field that is a “standing wave”. The nearest analogy would be that by way of a prism the Light of the Sun may be differentiated to present the colors of the rainbow. Similarly, for a Primal Centropic Field, by any other given name, may be differentiated via the prism called Matter to present the various Forces localized to matter which become interpreted as “fields”.

“Absorption” would be a dynamic whereby matter is a result of the ‘resonant capture’ of a portion of the energy of the Primal Centropic Field and reconfigures that energy into the “reference frame” its “rest state”. Energy of the Primal Centropic Field in excess of said “rest state” becomes emission phenomena. The overall dynamic becomes interpreted as “Conservation”.

[webolife]

Solar,
By virtue of spin, ie. angular momentum, a state of all matter/particulates/bodies, frequency is necessarily a modulating factor in the pressure field dynamic. Most of your summary statements are a decent reflection of my understanding of the centropic pressure field. A couple tweeks:
1. "Standing wave" -- a very interesting model for a dynamic field which appears to be static; more importantly for me it can be geometrically described as a symmetric field, ie. the angular pressure gradient can be elicited or depicted at either centroid/source or peripheral sensor. This is describable with ray diagrams without reference to any imagined waving, so I prefer not to have a mediumless undulation in my physics. But since action across a space/distance is unavoidable/observed in every interaction, I see no point in trying to minimize it through the use of an imagined aether either.
2. "Absorption" -- For me this is as simple as looking down a "vector" with either the arrow in your eye [absorption, dark] or the arrow toward the centroid source [lumination, reflection, light]. Thus for example as matter is flared/ejected from a sunspot [away from the centroid] it darkens [in normal light] to the viewer, but as it loops and returns to the surface in the sunspot umbral region, it appears bright to the viewer.
3. Where does the pressure originate? Ah, that is the metaphysical question of the ages... however on the premise of a finite universe, it is an exigent condition, ie. whatever maintains the finitude of the universe is perceived as universal centropic pressure, at every level and hierarchy of interaction.

[upriver]

Solar,
By virtue of spin, ie. angular momentum, a state of all matter/particulates/bodies, frequency is necessarily a modulating factor in the pressure field dynamic. Most of your summary statements are a decent reflection of my understanding of the centropic pressure field. A couple tweeks:

Spin angular momentum is a macroscopic property. Like collections of particles might spin. I would probably call it rotational speed if I was dealing with the kinetic aether.
If I was dealing with the earth(matter with mass) it would be Angular momentum...

Particles dont actually spin. Its a magnetic property at the microscopic particle level. Stern–Gerlach experiment .

3. Where does the pressure originate? Ah, that is the metaphysical question of the ages... however on the premise of a finite universe, it is an exigent condition, ie. whatever maintains the finitude of the universe is perceived as universal centropic pressure, at every level and hierarchy of interaction.

There are 2 types of pressure. Static and Dynamic.

Static pressure would be if the universe was pressurized and there was an outlet into some other unpressurized zone outside the universe.
Dynamic pressure would be if there was a flow like a river. A rock in a flowing river feels pressure from the mass of the water moving.

This is the kind of pressure that I believe is responsible for gravity. When the earth(massive matter) absorbs inflowing kinetic energy thereby creating a gradient that we think of as gravity. When a kinetic impulse or it appear a gradient acts of a free mass, it causes the mass to move...

[upriver]

Solar,
By virtue of spin, ie. angular momentum, a state of all matter/particulates/bodies, frequency is necessarily a modulating factor in the pressure field dynamic. Most of your summary statements are a decent reflection of my understanding of the centropic pressure field. A couple tweeks:

Spin angular momentum is a macroscopic property. Like collections of particles might spin. I would probably call it rotational speed if I was dealing with the kinetic aether.
If I was dealing with the earth(matter with mass) it would be Angular momentum...

Particles dont actually spin. Its a magnetic property at the microscopic particle level. Stern–Gerlach experiment .

3. Where does the pressure originate? Ah, that is the metaphysical question of the ages... however on the premise of a finite universe, it is an exigent condition, ie. whatever maintains the finitude of the universe is perceived as universal centropic pressure, at every level and hierarchy of interaction.

There are 2 types of pressure. Static and Dynamic.

Static pressure would be if the universe was pressurized and there was an outlet into some other unpressurized zone outside the universe.
Dynamic pressure would be if there was a flow like a river inside the universe from point to point. A rock in a flowing river feels pressure from the mass of the water moving.
This is the kind of pressure that I believe is responsible for gravity. The earth(massive matter) absorbs inflowing kinetic energy, thereby creating a gradient that we think of as gravity. When a kinetic impulse, or it appears a gradient, acts on a free mass, it causes the mass to move toward the zone of lower concentration i.e. the earths surface from a distance..... So its mass that causes gradients in the aether?

I suppose that density could be interpreted as pressure if the universe was at the same elevated density of fine particulate aether. But as I said before in my model there is a particulate lattice that is stable and the fine particles have limited movement, and what does move is the kinetic energy which creates the shapes(standing waves) in the particle fields.......

[webolife]

How does your impulse appear as a gradient? Simply identifying the two doesn't explain this...
Your description of static pressure is extropic, I'm thinking the opposite direction, a cinching action, as is observed in gravitation, charge etc. When two opposite vectors interact [the "collision" of two fields] there will naturally be a repulsion, but the fields themselves are characterized by centropic pressure.
Can you give me an example of a particle without spin... are you thinking of tidal, electric, magnetic locking between particles?
Although I don't agree, I'm getting your fine particulate aether field lattice, but what is "motivating" the kinetic energy to produce distinct shapes rather than randomly disorganizing the universe a la entropy? If you say matter, what motivated the formation of distinct material objects rather than a random assemblage of ... ?

Also I should have included in the previous post a note about "radiation": For some time now I have come to see radiation as radiating toward the centroid of the field, not as an emission from that, so my paradigm in all cases is centropic. Light is vectored toward the source as a sink, not away from it. Exactly like gravitation.

[upriver]

How does your impulse appear as a gradient? Simply identifying the two doesn't explain this...

In signal generation and analysis there is no such thing as the perfect square wave.
Looking at the same signal with 15mhz scope vs a 15ghz scope can show you how bad your signal generator really is.

gra·di·ent
"an increase or decrease in the magnitude of a property (e.g., temperature, pressure, or concentration) observed in passing from one point or moment to another."

That being said there is no such thing a perfect 90 degree square wave. All impulses are gradients. But people typically think of a gradient as being longer and shallower than an impulse.

Your description of static pressure is extropic, I'm thinking the opposite direction, a cinching action, as is observed in gravitation, charge etc. When two opposite vectors interact [the "collision" of two fields] there will naturally be a repulsion, but the fields themselves are characterized by centropic pressure. |

If you mean by centropic pressure the flow of kinetic energy... Like a river.. When an object is in a field, it will feel a force, depending on its properties, from the flow of kinetic energy....
So it could be said that the sinks(the massive absorber) purpose is to cause the gradient to cause the flow of kinetic energy to cause an object in the field to feel a force from the flowing kinetic energy...

Can you give me an example of a particle without spin... are you thinking of tidal, electric, magnetic locking between particles?

Electrons dont have physical spin. They have a magnetic property that is interpreted as angular momentum because of the particles response to a magnetic field. The Stern-Gerlach Experiment.
I dont think that the electron is actual matter like the massless Lattice that is the foundation of the universe.
Particles are standing waves(kinetic field) in the massless lattice...

Although I don't agree, I'm getting your fine particulate aether field lattice, but what is "motivating" the kinetic energy to produce distinct shapes rather than randomly disorganizing the universe a la entropy? If you say matter, what motivated the formation of distinct material objects rather than a random assemblage of ... ?

Absolutely... Do the thought experiment - what if you started with even just a motionless lattice...
Firstly you have to introduce motion, which is the Big Bang problem... Where does the kinetic energy come from to get the ball rolling??? Suppose you introduce consciousness into the lattice, consciousness is structured kinetic energy, now all of a sudden you have the perturbations to start the universe.... The creation of standing waves in the Kinetic Aether.

At that point I just say that consciousnesses has existed forever what ever form it may take..... There is no way out of this conundrum. Its easy to accept that this massive universe was created by consciousness, or if you read Alien Interview multiple consciousnesses, but what was consciousness created by?? Thats where I stop.

Also I should have included in the previous post a note about "radiation": For some time now I have come to see radiation as radiating toward the centroid of the field, not as an emission from that, so my paradigm in all cases is centropic. Light is vectored toward the source as a sink, not away from it. Exactly like gravitation.

The way I'm thinking about gravitation is that its the pressure of the flow of kinetic energy that is gravity...
Its not a radiation per se. It is a field in the sense that anything put into its influence will move towards the centroid.
I would think of radiation as being light based. Its a specific communication between electrons that has specific properties. Since we give light mass when its moving I would say that it could be more of a ballistic effect than a gradient.
That would work if there was a pilot wave to indicate to the sender that we are ready to send? I think the pilot wave might also explain Sansbury's results...

New Support for Alternative Quantum View
An experiment claims to have invalidated a decades-old criticism against pilot-wave theory, an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics that avoids the most baffling features of the subatomic universe.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517 ... l-support/

[webolife]

OK I also get the eternal consciousness causing a disturbance in the original matrix or lattice of the universe.
Creative design. But mass cannot "suck". What causes the centropic gravitation that characterizes all moving objects, and amalgamates massive matter? Why should "kinetic energy" be centropic at all?

We are looking at different gradients... I am comparing the spectral gradient common to all focused observances of light, with the gravitational [force] gradient observed at any surface contact point...

[upriver]

OK I also get the eternal consciousness causing a disturbance in the original matrix or lattice of the universe.
Creative design.

Call it what you want but energy came from somewhere...

But mass cannot "suck". What causes the centropic gravitation that characterizes all moving objects, and amalgamates massive matter? Why should "kinetic energy" be centropic at all?

Look at it this way.
Massive matter has a resonance at a certain part of the Kinetic aether spectrum. The mass at that frequency(the earth)absorbs kinetic energy and converts it into the motion of atoms, particles and bonds, plus photons... It would have to be at a rate faster than the energy can replenish the area to create a gradient.

This does bring up an interesting problem in that somehow mass acts like pump or an outlet from the kinetic aether into normal space. Or if the aether was at a "higher pressure" than normal space it could "squirt" into normal space..

We are looking at different gradients... I am comparing the spectral gradient common to all focused observances of light, with the gravitational [force] gradient observed at any surface contact point...

By spectral gradient do you mean from IR to UV?
A gravitational gradient by necessity means 2 points.

[upriver]

Brant Ra
I was going to immediately try to derive gravity from the energy absorption of mass, and the energy of space. But trying to understand those particular numbers has proven to be a challenge..
What number do I use for the energy of space and what number do I use for the absorption of kinetic energy of an atom...
After I come up with the parameters to be included in the derivation, I will have to hire a mathematician..
It may be possible to do this in algebra as a Moment of Work(scalar) analysis...

[webolife]

Not just gravitation, but any normal force is accompanied by a vector gradient, two points notwithstanding.
My use of gradient is apparently different from yours, but yes the spectrum is a gradient of light elicited angularly from the central line of sight. This theta-angle was confused by Young as a derivative of wave-length but this can be shown by simple observations of slit phenomena to be a flawed analysis.

[upriver]

So I have finally synthesized a model of the universe that might work for every phenomena that has been observed by human kind..

The Kinetic Universe.
https://app.box.com/s/mwtlabsvf2ntnwmaxe0i3o4ebuurq9jz

[upriver]

The Unified Energy Theory that goes with The Kinetic Universe uses the Moment of Work Analysis.

This means that you analyze the moment of energy transfers.

If you take a ball up onto a ladder, that is one moment of work, verses dropping the ball. That is a separate moment of work.
Gravity provides kinetic energy. As does carrying the ball up the ladder, which provides biological kinetic energy.
Everything can be analyzed as kinetic energy for the moment of work analysis.

Curved Space time does not provide energy for forces to do work.

[sketch1946]

Hi webolife,
Not challenging here, just a simple question which is really two or more...

But mass cannot "suck". What causes the centropic gravitation that characterizes all moving objects, and amalgamates massive matter?

If mass can't 'suck', what happens in a helium atom?
Why doesn't the earth take off at a tangent to the sun?
btw I know about Einstein's theory of matter deforming space time...

I'm just contemplating the nature of this force that can be felt when you grip
two magnets and try to make their like poles touch... this force extends out from each magnet
and can be physically felt preventing the first magnet from touching the second...
no atoms physically going anywhere as far as I know.. just the magnetic 'fields'
extending through the intervening space and repelling each other,
there is an exchange of energy here... it takes physical force to
try to make those bars touch, so there must be some physical reality to this 'field'
or am I missing something?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/q ... de128.html
this mechanistic set of equations describes:
"...the electrostatic ***attraction between the nucleus and the first electron, the electrostatic attraction between the nucleus and the second electron, and the electrostatic repulsion between the two electrons...'
This seems to be describing something sucky called 'attraction' and something anti-sucky called repulsion, is it just semantics? You can't flip them over without having the same problem if you know what I mean....

(yeah i know the emotions, just looking for comments about the physics)

Then there's the 'strong force' which sounds like 'super-sucky'

"the strong force is approximately 137 times as strong as electromagnetism, a million times as strong as the weak interaction and 10^38 times as strong as gravitation."

Just as with Maxwell's equations, as soon as the realities of electromagnetism are getting clearer, they disappear into a 'field'... this is very frustrating, I want to understand what is the physical nature of a field, I know it makes the maths understandable, but we're dealing with reality here.. apparently Faraday believed that force was a substance, it was Maxwell who vanished it into a set of equations

"There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is described mathematically as a ***field."

So here we have 'fields' that co-exist, even superimpose on each other, and have 'strengths' where one 'field' is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the other,
which sounds very sucky... but what is sucking what?

I have read that some scientists have believed that the vectors work the other way, like the universe has a 'pressure' of some sort that keeps everything together...

Just curious

[upriver]

Hi webolife,
Not challenging here, just a simple question which is really two or more...

But mass cannot "suck". What causes the centropic gravitation that characterizes all moving objects, and amalgamates massive matter?

If mass can't 'suck', what happens in a helium atom?
Why doesn't the earth take off at a tangent to the sun?
Then there's the 'strong force' which sounds like 'super-sucky'

"the strong force is approximately 137 times as strong as electromagnetism, a million times as strong as the weak interaction and 10^38 times as strong as gravitation."

Just as with Maxwell's equations, as soon as the realities of electromagnetism are getting clearer, they disappear into a 'field'... this is very frustrating, I want to understand what is the physical nature of a field, I know it makes the maths understandable, but we're dealing with reality here.. apparently Faraday believed that force was a substance, it was Maxwell who vanished it into a set of equations.

"There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is described mathematically as a ***field."

So here we have 'fields' that co-exist, even superimpose on each other, and have 'strengths' where one 'field' is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the other,
which sounds very sucky... but what is sucking what?

I have read that some scientists have believed that the vectors work the other way, like the universe has a 'pressure' of some sort that keeps everything together...

Just curious

Just looking at what fields do, you can say they cause objects to move. Then you could say what kind of mechanism can we use to represent the interaction of imparting kinetic energy to a massbound object?

The idea that I am using for a representation of a field is "Structured Kinetic Aether."