Attention to all Gravity and Aether Researchers

[Aaron]

storing potential

and all the energy is stored as potential energy in the greater altitude.

You're saying an object stores potential as it is lifted to a height? And that
the potential is turned back into work when the object is dropped? And you're
saying you get out of it what you put in to get a net zero?

[Matos de Matos]

An interesting thing is that the kinetic energy applied to get from zero to V is given back from V to zero so technically our work nets to zero. and all the energy is stored as potential energy in the greater altitude.

Use a long (55,154 foot) lever with various mass and fulcrum positions between the two altitudes. Is there a way to get a gain from the asymmetric forces?

Hi Harvey:

I really admire your knowledge on the various topics, but what really makes me having respect of your person is the simplicity of your attitude.
You do not judge others, and ignore then just because their perception of the facts are different from the establish science. You answer always with a simple form and when we show a different perspective, most probably due to lack of scientific knowledge, you show respect and elucidate us with a brilliant reasoning and facts.
Ignoring a person that posted his opinion, as unscientific as can be, shows a lack of self respect and an “I know it all” attitude.
Participating in a forum like this, is in my opinion not a way of showing off but a way of learn something; well at least is the reason why I participate.

I think I understand GB, because if feel the same.
In a pendulum, if we add a force tuned with the swing, it will be all absorbed by the weight, and the pendulum will travel past the initial horizontal potential line.

My perception is that if we add that force on descending the pendulum will gain more velocity, and will go higher the potential line than if we add the same force on the way up.

Other example of my perception is that a child adds some energy to the centripetal force to go higher, but to lift his body, the same distance as in the swing gain, from a standing position he would need a lot more energy.

I hope you understand what I am saying.

Again, probably is nonsense, but is my perception.

Thank you
David

[Vickers]

Said it before...I say it again, Gravity was invented because an apple fell on
some guys head.
If this guy had of been on the moon would an apple have donged him on the head?
Of course not.. There is no ?gravity? on the moon. Yet MOON ?gravity? controls the earths sea tides?
Atmosphere is blatantly and undeniably there. I like apples but no way will I blame gravity for them.

[Armagdn03]

Hi Harvey:

I really admire your knowledge on the various topics, but what really makes me having respect of your person is the simplicity of your attitude.
You do not judge others, and ignore then just because their perception of the facts are different from the establish science. You answer always with a simple form and when we show a different perspective, most probably due to lack of scientific knowledge, you show respect and elucidate us with a brilliant reasoning and facts.
Ignoring a person that posted his opinion, as unscientific as can be, shows a lack of self respect and an “I know it all” attitude.
Participating in a forum like this, is in my opinion not a way of showing off but a way of learn something; well at least is the reason why I participate.

I think I understand GB, because if feel the same.
In a pendulum, if we add a force tuned with the swing, it will be all absorbed by the weight, and the pendulum will travel past the initial horizontal potential line.

My perception is that if we add that force on descending the pendulum will gain more velocity, and will go higher the potential line than if we add the same force on the way up.

Other example of my perception is that a child adds some energy to the centripetal force to go higher, but to lift his body, the same distance as in the swing gain, from a standing position he would need a lot more energy.

I hope you understand what I am saying.

Again, probably is nonsense, but is my perception.

Thank you
David

Well said! Thanks Harvey, we love you

[Aaron]

clarification

David,

This thread is about AETHER and the notion that potential is stored
in anything because it is lifted to any certain point is 180 degrees
opposite from the purpose that the aether serves, which is to supply
the gravitational potential.

When something is lifted to any height there is LESS potential that is
has access to (not stored) but LESS potential it has access to because
the density of the aether is less and less the further from the surface
of the Earth you go.

If an object is at 1 mile high and sitting on the top of a table, there is
no potential "stored", all the gravitational potential of the aether moving
through it is dissipated by the resistance of the table holding it up
and all the work in joules of energy that lifted it is 100% used up
during the lift.

If the object is bumped off the table and has nothing resisting it's fall,
it is only then when that gravitational potential is able to cause work
on the apple by dissipating that potential through work by air resistance,
etc... and hitting the ground, etc...

So the idea of storing potential contradicts an aetheric gravity model.

"storing potential" is an abstract concept and the aetheric model where
potential isn't "stored" in an object at a height shows that the potential
is a real concrete thing or substance and is not just an abstract concept.

Harvey and I talked about this before and he shared why he thinks
gravity is weak and is interesting, he didn't mention that part yet and it
is his idea to share but the bottom line is that I'm asking questions to
clarify something that contradicts the nature of the thread in my opinion
and if anyone has problem with that, it is a reflection of an issue within
that person and not with what I said.

If anyone mentions storing potential, I think they ought to be able to
justify such a belief especially in a thread about aetheric gravity models.

I respect and appreciate Harvey and I simply asked a few questions.
Anyone is free to turn the innate reality of it into something else and
pass judgment on me based on something they made up in their own mind.

[Armagdn03]

David,

This thread is about AETHER and the notion that potential is stored
in anything because it is lifted to any certain point is 180 degrees
opposite from the purpose that the aether serves, which is to supply
the gravitational potential.

When something is lifted to any height there is LESS potential that is
has access to (not stored) but LESS potential it has access to because
the density of the aether is less and less the further from the surface
of the Earth you go.

If an object is at 1 mile high and sitting on the top of a table, there is
no potential "stored", all the gravitational potential of the aether moving
through it is dissipated by the resistance of the table holding it up
and all the work in joules of energy that lifted it is 100% used up
during the lift.

If the object is bumped off the table and has nothing resisting it's fall,
it is only then when that gravitational potential is able to cause work
on the apple by dissipating that potential through work by air resistance,
etc... and hitting the ground, etc...

So the idea of storing potential contradicts an aetheric gravity model.

"storing potential" is an abstract concept and the aetheric model where
potential isn't "stored" in an object at a height shows that the potential
is a real concrete thing or substance and is not just an abstract concept.

Harvey and I talked about this before and he shared why he thinks
gravity is weak and is interesting, he didn't mention that part yet and it
is his idea to share but the bottom line is that I'm asking questions to
clarify something that contradicts the nature of the thread in my opinion
and if anyone has problem with that, it is a reflection of an issue within
that person and not with what I said.

If anyone mentions storing potential, I think they ought to be able to
justify such a belief especially in a thread about aetheric gravity models.

I respect and appreciate Harvey and I simply asked a few questions.
Anyone is free to turn the innate reality of it into something else and
pass judgment on me based on something they made up in their own mind.

It sounds to me like you have come to a conclusion, and all else is delusion. (closest emoticon to blowing smoke I could find)

[Matos de Matos]

David,

This thread is about AETHER and the notion that potential is stored
in anything because it is lifted to any certain point is 180 degrees
opposite from the purpose that the aether serves, which is to supply
the gravitational potential.

So the idea of storing potential contradicts an aetheric gravity model.

Hi Aaron:
I do believe in the dynamic Aether, but not sure on that density that you defend.
I see the Aether as the God´s particle that has the fundamental energy, the kinetic force, it is so small, that, traveling between the nucleus and the orbiting electron, it’s size is compared to a photon between earth and moon.
Imagine its velocity, (C²?) and when it slows down, combines and creates other particles. The almost infinity number of combinations that are necessary just to form an electron, shows how easy is to apply the conservation law, and for each particle that enters the system a similar particle leaves it unless it loses kinetic energy and then the system gains mass.
So the earth is just an infinite number of combinations of God´s particle that slows down and form this beauty.
Sound and heat are particles, and the past Genius that made science, believed in the caloric. Today we are talking about phonons.
Magnetism is a path that matter defines for the Aether. Looking at the dimensions difference between the Aether and for example the photon, isn´t difficult to perceive that an infinity number of particles passes through its inside easily.
Gravity is the shadow that matter does to the “all directions flow of Aether”.
Between the shadows is created a potential due to the difference of kinetic pressure that the Aether exerts in the matter.
I see the potential as the difference of kinetic energy between two groups of mass.
This is my opinion, probably nonsense, statistically proved by the low participation on my threads.
I hope that this time I did not went “off topic”, and my apologies for the difference of opinion.
“The difference drives the world”
Thank you
David

[Aaron]

@Arm

It sounds to me like you have come to a conclusion, and all else is delusion. (closest emoticon to blowing smoke I could find)

The belief in storing potential is incompatible with an aether gravity model.

And I have no right to ask Harvey to clarify what is his definition of
"storing potential"? I think it is uncalled for for anyone to question me
about asking straight questions to Harvey.

Your alchemy book reference is saying all else is a delusion so lets be
consistent here. Whether gravity is pushing "up" is semantics and is a
matter of perspective. Your description of how you see it in terms of
buoyancy pushing up lighter gases by having heavier ones settling is
more accurate in my opinion than what that woman is saying as they
are not the same.

"You have chosen to ignore the fact that gravity also pushes upward, and that gasses are constantly rising."

That is saying everything is a delusion that doesn't see gravity pushes upward.
Sorry, for me it doesn't and I'm not delusional no matter what your guru says.

Rotating mass deflects the aether perpendicular but will of course be down at
an angle and that creates a higher pressure zone of aether around the ridge
keeping it in place and resisting it from tilting and that higher pressure will equalize
underneath the rotating mass - reduced pressure but still higher than what is directly on top
of the mass meaning it will lose weight, that doesn't mean gravity is pushing
up, gravity pushes down and things with less mass can be displaced upwards
but it isn't the gravity "pushing up". That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it
as everyone else is.

So please don't post your guru's CONCLUSION, implying all else is a delusion
and then insult me.

[Armagdn03]

The belief in storing potential is incompatible with an aether gravity model.

This is inconsistent with the post you made on my gravity discussion:

Well my personal primary view of the "aether" is that it is not energy but
potential energy or the potential for work or physical action in our "3d space
and time" just to keep it simple.

And I have no right to ask Harvey to clarify what is his definition of
"storing potential"? I think it is uncalled for for anyone to question me
about asking straight questions to Harvey.

You can ask whatever you like, questions are great if done with the intention of learning.

Your alchemy book reference is saying all else is a delusion so lets be
consistent here. Whether gravity is pushing "up" is semantics and is a
matter of perspective. Your description of how you see it in terms of
buoyancy pushing up lighter gases by having heavier ones settling is
more accurate in my opinion than what that woman is saying as they
are not the same.

"You have chosen to ignore the fact that gravity also pushes upward, and that gasses are constantly rising."

That is saying everything is a delusion that doesn't see gravity pushes upward.
Sorry, for me it doesn't and I'm not delusional no matter what your guru says.

This is not "my" book. It is a work consistent with Walter Russell and other cosmologies which attempt to distill rather than observe effect. Nowhere in these references do they say all else is delusion, in fact they encourage one to look inward to find truth, rather than to take them at face value. In fact the references I speak of encourage with positivity... curiosity, rather than slam a stance on the table draw a line, and say that their view is "innate" and that all else is "made up in your own mind". This is just a combative stance.

Rotating mass deflects the aether perpendicular but will of course be down at
an angle and that creates a higher pressure zone of aether around the ridge
keeping it in place and resisting it from tilting and that higher pressure will equalize
underneath the rotating mass - reduced pressure but still higher than what is directly on top
of the mass meaning it will lose weight, that doesn't mean gravity is pushing
up, gravity pushes down and things with less mass can be displaced upwards
but it isn't the gravity "pushing up". That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it
as everyone else is.

I have no opinion on the technical aspects of your arguement, simply the negative way in which they were presented.

So please don't post your guru's CONCLUSION, implying all else is a delusion
and then insult me.

I never posted anything of the sort....except in my thread. It was not her conclusion either. She was relayed the information. I never said all else was delusion either, nor implied it, again I am only concerned with the negativity.

Apologies for the insult, I realized my own negativity after posting. Ill try not to slip again, negativity breads negativity.

[Aaron]

@Arm

Arm, I was attacked for asking Harvey a question, initially.

Anyway, my apologies if you're offended but I just don't beat around
the bush with my questions - it was very straight forward, which is
usually the most effective way to get a very straight forward answer.
The way others want to perceive my questions is up to them.

I have learned a lot from Harvey through the inductive heater group
and he has quite a mastery of his field but the storing potential bit is
a bit of a pet peeve of mine. From a conventional viewpoint, they see
it as storing potential - if his definition is the same as that as an abstract
potential or of substance, that is what I want to know and is why I
asked.

And I really don't have a stance of having a "final answer". My viewpoints
are always evolving and if it wasn't I would have no interest if
Gravityblock had a website or not.

Anyway, there was no contradiction with my statement on
your thread and I'll explain, but first I want to respond to David.

I also think questions are great if they are for learning but questions can
also be asked for clarification to see if there is a logical contradiction
somewhere that may or may not be apparent to the person asking the
question.

[Aaron]

aetheric density

but not sure on that density that you defend.

it is so small, that, traveling between the nucleus and the orbiting electron,

This is my opinion, probably nonsense, statistically proved by the low participation on my threads.

I agree with just about everything you said. A lot of these beliefs are
fairly consistent through different aetheric models.

But I do also believe there is a counter particle or complimentary charge.
As you mention the "particle" moving between the nucleus and electron,
I think that the positive charge of the aether, definitely has a charge
and therefore exerts an electrostatic type of push against the proton
in the nucleus so that is the inertia and gravity push on an object
downwards. It hits the proton and is deflected around as they pass
each other.

Low participation I have seen doesn't correlate to something making sense.
Look at the Meyer threads...mostly wrong information but they're very
popular and don't account for splitting ambient air nitrogen into atomic
nitrogen in the presence of electrolytic hydrogen to make nh3 ammonia
on demand. Anyway, there are a lot of gems in this forum that do not
have a following - lack of interest or understanding or whatever, but
doesn't mean they're not on target.

The density - some people have a problem with this because they think
of the aether as supposed to be "incompressible". I get that but I see it
different because the definition of compression. And this might answer you
if it even has to do with you believing that aether is not able to be
compressed, which I don't know yet but that is the most common reason
that I've come across for why people don't believe in the density variable
that I present.

There is more than one space and that needs to be defined.

Local and absolute I suppose they could be refereed to as.

Away from mass and for simplicity, lets say mass doesn't influence it no matter
how far away. It is "default space". A cubic volume of that space would
have x amount of potential charge. That amount of charge in xyz is
actually what defines that unit of space and not the space itself.

Now lets say there is a strong mass that displaces the "space" enough,
actually displacing the aether, as it rebounds to where it was displaced
from it gets denser at the surface of the planet. Lets say it is 3 times.

There is 3 times as much space (because of having 3 times more
aether) in the same absolute single unit of space.

From the outside looking in, there is one unit of space having 3 times
as much aether.

But if someone was in that area of space from the inside looking out,
they would be unable to tell they are occupying less absolute space.

In that dense of aether, they would have to, from their point of reference,
move 3 times the distance to get through one unit of absolute "space".

It takes light 3 times as long to go through that one unit of absolute
space with 3 times the aetheric density (or at whatever proportion).
The amount of aether in any
unit of absolute space is what determines how fast or slow light will
go, that amount of aether is what determines the local distance within
that space. It is that aetheric density that determines the rate of which
time ticks as time isn't a dimension but a progression of how fast or
slow something can move through a section of space absolute or relative.

To the person being IN that region, they see no compression as it is
impossible from their point of view. But from the outside, there is 3 times
as much aether compressed into that one unit of absolute space.

So if we're on a planet with 10 times the gravity, it is like a wind up
propeller being released in a bowl of "solidified" gelatin. More dense aether
that resists the "movement" of light, mechanical movement, etc... and
the propeller would unwind much slower. That is time ticking slower
to the person outside looking in.
it would look be unwinding slow and the person standing next to the
propeller would think it is unwinding in their own time and would seem
normal. The absolute speed of conscious awareness is dependent on
the density of the aether and the relative speed of conscious awareness
would always look normal no matter the density.

If we're on a planet with 1/10th the gravity, it is much less dense aether
and the propeller would be like unwinding in water, much less dense and
the time ticks quicker. To the local observer it looks to be ticking normally,
but from the outside, the clock would look to be ticking quicker than the
10 times gravity clock.

So the concept that aether is incompressible in my opinion is only from
a local perspective that can never see the compression but it is visible
from the outside looking in seeing that more aether has been compressed
in a unit of absolute space.

I'm just stating why I do believe in the density factor of the aether.
It is an absolute or outside perspective and cannot be a relative or local
one.

[Aaron]

potential storing

"Aaron: Originally Posted by Aaron
The belief in storing potential is incompatible with an aether gravity model.

Arm: This is inconsistent with the post you made on my gravity discussion:

Aaron: Quote:
Well my personal primary view of the "aether" is that it is not energy but
potential energy or the potential for work or physical action in our "3d space
and time" just to keep it simple."

---------------------------------------

Yes, I did state in your thread that I do not believe the aether is energy
but potential energy. There is energy when it moves between two
potential differences. When something resists the aether, that is what
work is.

I still believe that because that is the fundamental distinction between
potential and energy. Energy is an adjective and not a thing, it describes
the activity of potential (not abstract term but actual aetheric charge)
moving from one point to another.

And yes, storing it like water in a glass is incompatible with this.

The aetheric charge is a like a river constantly available at any moment.
To use the river, we don't have to fill up a bucket, because it is not
going to run out, we we just determine
how we want to resist the aether to whatever degree is necessary to
get whatever work we want.

If a river is flowing and we hook a ball to a rope connected to both sides
and pin the rope to each bank of the river

---------------------------O---------------------------

Like that

The ball isn't storing any potential, any particles that make up that
ball are not going to be storing potential by having the "electrons"
kick into some higher rpm just because the ball is being prevented
from moving. Yes, at the subtle energetics of it, there of course
is an interaction but I'm talking about literally the nature of the
potential and being able to store it or not, when not only is storing
it unnecessary because the river isn't running out, but nature
never designed itself to do something that is pointless or unnecessary.

Anyway, that's just blabbering on, but here's the point...

The potential that is hitting the ball and the ball is resisting against
it - ALL the potential to push that ball down the river by the movement of
the water against it is being dissipated through the resistance to movement.

That means nothing is getting stored.

It is simply quantum jujitsu.

The water flows to it, and it just flows around at the highest efficiency
possible dictated by the intrinsic nature of it's interaction with the
water.

The only time that potential isn't 100% resisted is when the ball is released
to be able to float down the river. That is when the potential is used and
never had to be stored because it can't be stored.

The ball did not swell up to a bigger size to contain water that it never
had to contain.

If we have an object on the ground and lift it to 10 feet, 100% of every
joule of energy we expended to lift it 10 feet is dissipated. We did not
put potential in abstract or concrete form into that object. All of our
input is gone.

Now sitting at 10 feet, the aether is moving towards the ground and the
positive charge of the flux exerts a push on the protons that make up the
object pinning it to that 10 foot high pedestal. 100% of all that
gravitational potential is dissipated by the table resisting the ball from
moving. It just moves on through at the highest efficiency.

So, there is no potential stored since it is all being used up to keep in
on the pedestal at 10 feet.

If the object rolls off the pedestal, then and only then can the WORK
of the object being pinned to the pedestal be turned back into
gravitational potential by not being resisted by the pedestal. It falls
so it has very little loss, little air resistance, etc...

When the object hits the ground, a strong potential difference is made and
all that gravitational potential can again be turned into work through the
dissipation of "energy" when it hits the ground - impact, sound, bounce,
etc...

That potential wasn't stored in the object, just available to be potential
again by falling. It is NEW potential that entered the system
and makes the ball fall and do work. None of that potential was left over
or stored in the object by pushing it up to 10 feet.

And the concept of getting the work out of it from what we initially put
in so there is no gain is simply a contradiction of what is self evident as
explained above.

We put work into the system. 100% of that input is dissipated and none
is stored. Then when the ball returns from being thrown up or pushed off
the pedestal, then and only then does it see the aether as potential.
Sitting, it is work, falling it is potential, mostly and with losses, there is less
potential in it by the time it hits the ground compared to the
input potential. But it is different potential, not the same "stored"
potential.

But add up each new input of potential by falling on each successive
bounce or whatever and it is over 1.0 COP or can be easily.

When a ball falls, it is new gravitational potential input and not from
stored reserves.

Anyway, that is just for clarification of what I mean and what my
definitions are of energy, potential, and the new input of actual
moving gravitational potential vs storing an abstract concept.
abstract term.

[Harvey]

You're saying an object stores potential as it is lifted to a height? And that
the potential is turned back into work when the object is dropped? And you're
saying you get out of it what you put in to get a net zero?

Aaron,

Sorry I was out of town yesterday and am just now getting to the various emails in my box and this was the next in line. Perhaps if I were able to have answered earlier I could helped stave some of the negatives

'Potential' is really a very relative thing. For example: If I lift a bowling ball up to my ankle and contemplate dropping it on my bare toes, it has the potential to hurt - some. If I raise it to my chest and drop it on my toes, it has the potential to hurt even more. If I set it on top of a 10' ladder and and then shake the ladder and let it land on my toe, there is a good potential for it to cause permanent damage. And if I carry it to the top of the Empire State building and allow it to hit my toe, the potential exists to remove my toe from existence.

Each of these positions in altitude represent a relative (to my toe) potential and to quantify that potential we generally use terms of Energy. In this case, we would use the term Gravitational Potential Energy or EGP which tells us that it is a static energy waiting to be expressed. When the drop is initiated, a conversion between one form of energy and another takes place. In this case, the EGP is converted into Kinetic Energy (EK) as the bowling ball passes from one altitude to the next and by the time it reaches my ankle the only EGP left in the ball is that equivalent to if I raised it to that level - but the EK is equivalent to the EGP for the starting altitude.

Conversely, we could make our energy measurements relative to a geosynchronous space station instead. In that case, the energy would have a negative value, but the Joules would still be the same, only the vector would be opposite.

You may recall Dr. Lene Hau and how she turned light into matter and back again. Let us imagine for a moment that this event were to take place at some random altitude. Maybe we imagine that she has a lab in a floating dirigible with emergency thrusters for example and she is able to create 500 tons of matter (ok, we are only imagining here for a thought experiment) and suddenly all that matter has a force acting on it. Clearly, we have not 'stored' any energy in the newly formed matter because it was created at that point. But we find that it has a great potential relative to the Earth's surface. In a scramble the captain asks you to quickly calculate how much thrust will be needed to offset the added weight. You need a formula quick and you look at your book shelf and see the new 2013 volume on proposed Aether Gravity Formula's based on Davidson and the Old 1994 volume on Special Relativistic Newtonian Gravity - which reference material to you grab and give the captain to avert disaster?

The simple truth is that when we have two masses at a distance from each other a force exists that tends to cause them to collide. This force exists with or without relative motion. So there is a potential for the two masses to be brought together. We call that force Gravity and we quantify the potential involved in units of energy. Once two masses have already collided, the potential no longer exists. But if we expend energy (think space shuttle rockets here) to put a distance between these two masses, then the potential is restored. It really is all just a matter of perspective and it just so happens that the same energy we use to put it at that distance exactly equals the energy that mass will have in it as kinetic energy to convert to heat (air friction) and impact energy when it collides again.

One of the ways to evaluate whether we are storing Gravitational Potential Energy is to compare how much energy is needed to move the same mass a given distance on a level surface to how much energy we must use to raise that mass to a height of the same distance. The differential is the Stored EGP. But where is that energy stored? It is not stored in the atoms of the material any more than momentum is stored in the atoms of a moving train.

So it does not matter if gravity is caused by mass attraction, curved space, graviton particles pushing us down or Aether pressure - what ever the root cause of the force, the energy storage is the same.

[Aaron]

energy and potential

'Potential' is really a very relative thing. For example: If I lift a bowling ball up to my ankle and contemplate dropping it on my bare toes, it has the potential to hurt - some. If I raise it to my chest and drop it on my toes, it has the potential to hurt even more.

the term Gravitational Potential Energy or EGP which tells us that it is a static energy waiting to be expressed. When the drop is initiated, a conversion between one form of energy and another takes place.

The simple truth is that when we have two masses at a distance from each other a force exists that tends to cause them to collide.

So there is a potential for the two masses to be brought together.

But if we expend energy (think space shuttle rockets here) to put a distance between these two masses, then the potential is restored.

It really is all just a matter of perspective and it just so happens that the same energy we use to put it at that distance exactly equals the energy that mass will have in it as kinetic energy to convert to heat (air friction) and impact energy when it collides again.

The differential is the Stored EGP. But where is that energy stored? It is not stored in the atoms of the material any more than momentum is stored in the atoms of a moving train.

So it does not matter if gravity is caused by mass attraction, curved space, graviton particles pushing us down or Aether pressure - what ever the root cause of the force, the energy storage is the same.

Hi Harvey,

I agree those foot pounding descriptions defines more potential, but in
a way that is an abstract potential and not a "concrete" substance.
It doesn't address what the potential is.

I would see the gravitational potential as anything but a "static energy".

It is very dynamic and flowing source of potential constantly moving like
an infinite river. And static and energy I think are either polar opposites
or perfect compliments but not the same thing. Static implies a gravitational
potential that isn't moving inwards towards the mass from where it was
displaced and energy is a movement of potential while it resists something,
which is what the work is. Static would mean something still and energy
means something moving exhibiting work in some way. So still and moving
don't jive with each other as being the same so I see the concept of
static energy as being an oxymoron.

The conservation of energy you mention is one particular school of
thought has never been proven as far as I know. Personally, I don't buy
conservation of energy because nothing changes form. There is input
into something, it is dissipated and then new potential comes in
like gravitational potential and that will be dissipated through air
resistance and impact on ground, etc... but in any case, there is not
transformation or change of energy from one form to another but simply
a dissipation of what was put in then a new supply of potential is come
in. New potential and not a transformed one. Essentially, energy IS
created out of thin air and isn't a transformed thing. Of course there
was an instigator of that energy but not a transformation.

I do agree that something causes them to collide...2 masses. But saying
that a "force" causes them to collide doesn't answer why. The force
needs to be defined and realized what could be actually causing the force
and not just a descriptive word to define an "unknown" action.

If two masses are by each other, the aether between them is shared between them meaning there is LESS they would have rebounding to them
compared to if no other mass was around. That means that they are in
a asymmetrical situation of their position to the aether and the aether is
literally squeezing harder on them on the side that there is more aether
and they will be pushed into the direction of the place where there is the
least amount of aether rebounding, which is on the face that faces the
other mass. Both do it and both are squeezed towards each other.

If you squeeze on an ice cube equally on all sides it can stay in place, but
remove some squeeze or push on one particular side and the ice will
be pushed in the direction of the weakest push.

That area with the weakest push is the two facing sides that has co-oped
the amount of aether between them sharing it by certain proportions,
and causing those facing sides to have the least push on the objects
meaning the push from around the other sides of the masses push
them together.

I think this is just the self evident mechanics of the situation without
referring to that "action at a distance" as a "force" but spelling out
the actual mechanical nature of masses interaction with the aether.

I agree there is potential to bring the 2 masses together, but it gives
no description of what the potential is, it is still an abstract concept
there. But seeing the potential is the potential charge of the aether
is actually giving "substance" to potential instead of it being the abstract
concept it always has been.

If we expend energy to separate masses, 100% of the work we put in
is used up and dissipated. The free push from nature of the aether
from every part of the universe, provides the free push of the aether
to fill in the space that mass occupied and displaced the aether from
in the first place.

Now that 100% of what we put in is "used up", how does the potential
get established again?

The potential was already there as an endless ocean of the aether moving
freely back to where it was displaced. So when two masses separate,
the space between them has a certain amount of aether, that aether is
divided proportionally between their masses.

That means that every other space around the mass has more aether
rebounding there from the endless ocean than the space shared by the
other mass meaning it will push the mass asymmetrically towards the other
mass and visa versa.

So we couldn't re-establish potential, we just reconfigure the masses
to have the right resistance to the aether in the right places to get the
work we want and the potential was already there. Re-establishing the
potential by separating them I think is again an abstract term for what
potential is while acknowledging an actual "physical" charge fluxing
in any particular region of space and its interaction with physical matter
or mass/protons is the actual source of the charge - not just an abstract
concept.

I could put an object on the ground and at 10 feet. It would be said
that the one at 10 feet has x amount of potential. So if I dig a 10 feet
hole next to the object on the ground, does that object suddenly get
potential stored in it? It doesn't.

There is more "potential" in the abstract
way and that if anyone saw more potential suddenly manifest in the
object when a 10 ft hole was dug by it - that potential is an abstract
made up thing while the gravitational potential as aetheric charge is an
actual physical thing that is the source potential.

Maybe I'm the only one but I think it is a huge distinction to use
"potential" in a way that it is an abstract term vs. an actual physical
charge so to speak.

I think between "mass attraction", aetheric, etc... they aren't all
the same and the outcome is different and not just "energy storage".

Energy is the very action of potential being dissipated through work.

So we cannot store an action or adjective (energy).

[Matos de Matos]

Maybe I'm the only one but I think it is a huge distinction to use
"potential" in a way that it is an abstract term vs. an actual physical
charge so to speak.

I think between "mass attraction", aetheric, etc... they aren't all
the same and the outcome is different and not just "energy storage".

Energy is the very action of potential being dissipated through work.

So we cannot store an action or adjective (energy).

Hi Aaron:

As you notice, I am not an academic and I have a difficulty to understand facts by formulas and numbers.
My perception of the physical systems is influenced by geometry and movement.

I can not imagine a fundamental particle being compressed. If two particles combine in a new form of matter, then if other particle hits it, the two particles will be compressed or pulled apart.

The Aether by itself has the only fundamental and conserved energy (kinetic, velocity), and only slows down if combine with others, creating a different kind of mass.

Regarding the electric field, and charges I feel that is just the movement of particles, with a potential to drag any particle that crosses their path. The charge is a convention on the direction of the movement, just like poles on the magnetic field that have the potential to move certain particles that enter in contact with that directional flow of the Aether.

I agree with Harvey that having potential or storing it is a question of semantics, but I can understand that if you prevent matter from moving due to the kinetic force of the Aether impaired on it, you are creating a potential. If you remove that prevention, the matter has the potential to move.

You right that energy has the potential to perform work but I can’t understand energy as the “potential”. I think that the word (potential) itself it says that you may have or you may not have something (energy) for something, but isn’t that something.

If you walk on a dealership to buy a car, a salesman looks at you as a potential customer.
After he checks your bank account or your credit rate, he will confirm if you are or not a potential buyer.
When he looked at you for the first time you were an abstract potential, but after checking your bank account you are a real potential because you have money.
But money itself isn’t a potential, is the energy that you will use to by the car.
By the way, (off topic) I think that money is energy created by men.
Instead of using your energy to dig that 10ft hole to create an real potential, you pay with another kind of energy (money) that you get from your boss. Your boss transformed your work in money (energy)
It is the energy transformation that normally has the highest rate of entropy; you work a lot and get so little money.
Thank you
David

Ps: And the boss has a higher potential, more energy, (money), than the worker stored in the bank.
I can’t see energy or work as an action, but the result of the action of the movement of mass.