Universal Aspects

What is the direct electric force and how does the “direct electric force” do work. Thats what a force does, is transfer energy from one place to another. The electric force acts “instantly” across distance and does work(transfers energy). In a recent EU article “A recent press release ignores the primary electrical aspect of the Sun, preferring to focus on kinetic effects in an attempt to explain the solar wind anomalies:” I am not backing them up but kinetic energy is a big part of this... So I say this… What would happen if you took all the motion(kinetic energy) away from the universe?? You would have a sea of charged particles probably pretty equally spaced.... You only have what we call electricity when you add motion(kinetic energy). Otherwise its just charged particles. The energy travels in the “electric” field that surrounds the particle, and the wire if thats the case. The motion is in the field with a little bit causing the electrons to drift... This goes back to my elucidation of the energy path from a hydroelectric dam. The water falls and turns the turbine attached to the generator. The generator rotors magnetic field transfers kinetic energy from the falling water across the gap to the stator to electrons and causes kinetic energy to move down the field as what we call electricity. Its really just a microscopic way of transferring kinetic energy. Then at the other end the electricity(transferred kinetic energy) is turned into heat which is kinetic energy as well… People get caught up in the conversions and conservation when its all kinetic energy, motion, momentum, acceleration, force that does the work. You can use the same units for everything... Looking at a hydrogen atom, if perform a charge separation on the atom, you have the electric force acting on the proton and the electron with the corresponding “electric field” in between. If you want to maintain that field last for longer than the recombination time, you need to add an opposing force to the test particles(electron, proton). This opposing force could be thought of as the opposite of the kinetic energy generated by letting the test particles recombine… So what is the field or the structure in between the test particles that allows the properties that we observe to manifest?... Thinking about Subtrons. If you have Planck length waves you can perform additive synthesis... Technically a particle is composed of a wave resonance in a sea of particles….. It is the waves from extending out from the particle that we think of as the field and carry the energy shape the we think of as a particle.… But it is the aether particles that actually make up the particle….The aether is stationary as the wave forms move through the particle sea… The wave form is composed of kinetic energy which interacts with another particle. So technically the particles are made up of fields(wave forms carrying energy). If you look at wave in an additive manner then you could make a particle by resonance. Inside the particle you would a series of smaller waves that make up the larger wave resonance of the particle. These smaller resonances inside the particle would be moving. This wave structure would extend out from the particle effectively forming the field… The charge would be the modulated resonance(the field) structure(particles, subtrons) of the aether. After looking at many models of an aether I settled on a model that uses massless chargeless fine particles. Without motion the fine particles would be packed and wouldnt allow wave motion; i.e. provide a restoring force. It would effectively be rigid. To solve that problem, I assumed that every massless aether particle in the universe has a small random 360 degree oscillation, providing a restoring force and the properties required to carry a wave, being able to move a very tiny bit in any spherical direction… Now we have a medium capable of carrying a faster than light wave motion without requiring the exponential increase in energy observed with the acceleration of mass. The explanation I have put forth doesn't explain where the aether came from, but the aether at this level explains everything we observe in this universe plus things we dont believe in. It has room for growth as we discover new things. Tom VFlandfren posits that gravity has no inertia. Does Gravity Have Inertia? Inertia: the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest and the tendency of a body in motion to remain in motion. Tom Van Flandern / Meta Research <tomvf@metaresearch.org> Abstract. » Gravity makes heavy and light bodies fall at the same rate. Gravity obeys the “equivalence principle”, and is just "curved space-time geometry" in geometric general relativity. But space-time curvature alone cannot initiate motion, and changes in momentum still require a force acting. Moreover, gravity can deviate slightly from the “equivalence principle”, and “space-time” is really just proper time and does not involve any curvature of space. The Le Sage “pushing gravity” concept is a better way to explain the physics of gravity. For forces other than gravity, the momentum transferred must be shared by all particles in the target body, producing what we call “inertia” -- a simple dilution of momentum. Gravity obeys the “transparency principle”, allowing momentum to be transferred directly to each particle. Without need for dilution of momentum, gravity has no inertia. « http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Does%20Gravity%20Have%20Inertia.asp