The Paradox Engine

[gravityblock]

This is a really good thread!  Keep up the good work Tusk!  Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).

Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv²?  Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc².  Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c²?  Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving object, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?

In Miles Mathis' paper on photon motion, he showed how the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c². This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c². Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c² in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc². In this way, c² is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy.  So the short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc², always included the spin energy; but no one recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner, as Mathis showed in the photon paper. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v². The term v² transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.

The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy.  So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact.  Mathis has shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.

Reference:  The kinetic Energy equation, by Miles Mathis

Additional Resources:  Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum, by Miles Mathis (Both current equations are shown to be false)

Gravock

[Tusk]

Thanks gravityblock, both for the links and the encouragement. Mr Mathis appears at first glance to have winkled out most of the bugs in the literature already. It will take some serious time to wade through his website, but well worth it I suspect. My own small corner seems trivial by comparison, but we can only do our best. I often wonder that the possibility of a 'free' force fails to spark much interest, other than (largely) skepticism. So it's refreshing when someone has a positive reaction to the concept.



   

[telecom]

Meanwhile I kept thinking about the implication of the conservation of the momentum, which is correct, vs conservation
of energy, which is false.
There is a very interesting thread about this subject at bessler wheel with some practical examples:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2580

[CANGAS]

This is a really good thread!  Keep up the good work Tusk!  Below is a copy and paste summary of a publication on the kinetic energy equation, by Miles Mathis (reference link provided below).

Why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv²?  Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc².  Why square the speed of light? Why should the energy depend on c²?  Or, to extend the question, why should the energy of any moving object, moving with a constant velocity, depend on the square of that velocity?

In Miles Mathis' paper on photon motion, he showed how the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c². This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c². Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c² in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc². In this way, c² is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy.  So the short answer is that the kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc², always included the spin energy; but no one recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by spin. The spin has a radius, and this radius is the local wavelength. Any linear velocity of the spinning particle will stretch our measurement of this wavelength, in a simple mechanical manner, as Mathis showed in the photon paper. As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v². The term v² transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength. This is why we find the term in the energy equation.

The only question remaining is why we have the term ½ in the kinetic energy equation. The reason is simple. We are basically multiplying a wavelength transform by a mass, in order to calculate an energy.  So we have to look at how the mass and the wavelength interact.  Mathis has shown that the wavelength is caused by stacking several spins (at least two spins), so what we have is a material particle spinning end-over-end. If we look at this spin over any extended time interval, we find that half the time the material particle is moving in the reverse direction of the linear motion. Circular motion cannot follow linear motion, of course, and if we average the circular motion over time, only half the circular motion will match the linear vector. This means that half the effective mass will be lost, hence the equation we have.

Reference:  The kinetic Energy equation, by Miles Mathis

Additional Resources:  Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum, by Miles Mathis (Both current equations are shown to be false)

Gravock

"Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman."

Gravock, you have brought that famous quote to my mind. Are you really serious that you don't understand why, according to Newton physics and math, the kinetic energy energy equation has velocity SQUAREd?

Many people don't understand why the 1/2 is there. Do you understand why the 1/2 is there?

And do you really not understand why, within the internal logic of Relativity, Einstein left out the 1/2 in his famous Energy equation?

I am not trying to start a debate with you. I just want you to tell me that you are not joking and really do not understand it.


CANGAS 68

[tesla2]

I tested similar egnine in home


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tTKz3l1Nags/U0lU8jd6WQI/AAAAAAAABs4/ibvXKYSBnN4/s1600/d11.jpg

forces
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-afSuLz8Vznw/U0lQvhi6XCI/AAAAAAAABsw/YgXuEaNnTSw/s1600/r2.jpg

Why and how works similar engines  ?

http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs