thermodynamics

2+2+3 Physics

EM-Charge

Gravity

Energy in, less energy out Just another manifestation of speed of light Force Just the reverse of photons leaving a light Gravity is the anti-entropy force phenomenon The real force is charged bits of energy moving electrons and protons (thereby consuming a portion of the fields energy)

0/15/2025 update: Live 9-15-25... Gravity makes Heat';

ENERGY

I misspoke in the video: The living force was introduced in 1650s not 1750s. 8/21/2025 update: More Dispar bs 8/14/2025 update: The only thing double is the BS 8/8/2025 update: More Despicable Dispar 7/26/2025 update: Response video to Despicable labs pathetic -how kinetic energy- video 7/25/2025 update: DraftScience vs More ke lever BS ...Forgot to mention that these experiments should be filmed exactly the same so the video can be superimposed for comparison. 7/19/2025 update: More junky lever experiments 7/16/2025 update: re: Brozo's "new" lever experiment 7/8/2025 update: DraftScience vs free momentum... t 3:15 should have said 1 Mass going 2v instead of 4v 7/3/2025 update: Little energy in little credibility out ... 7/1/1025 update: re: the logic behind flawed and forced experiments..Free momentum? 6/28/1025 update: The video below is a response to a video that is a plainly pathetic attempt to defend kinetic energy.Energy 1b 6/21/1025 update: The video below is a response to a stupid comment and a vacuous explanation for why the V is squared Energy 1a

Photons

7/24/2025 update: Sabine Hossenfelder and Matt O'Dowd... just too stupid

Magnetism

Contact.

MV

An itemized list of errors in popular physics theory On the migration of energy through its observed forms. I shall provide reasoning defending the proposition that energy itself never changes form, that the elements of what we call Force have the same properties regardless of what object possesses the force or energy. I begin by proposing that energy or Force is an elemental substance made of discrete quanta of momentum. In other words, energy exists elementally as bits of stuff moving the speed of force/light. This description of energy is quite consistent with Einstein's description of a specific form of energy--the photon. I merely alter the description to include other and some less detectable arrangements of energy quanta. Put simply, energy quanta can exist in two states: freely flying in a straight line vector at the speed of light/force, or as a bit of energy attached to an electron or proton--where it shares its momentum with the matter bit. In the case where it is attached to a matter bit, the net velocity of the combined object will be less than the speed of light by some percentage dependent on how much energy quanta has been captured. In its unattached, freely flying form, bits of energy quanta arriving at a surface with a specific frequency might be perceived as a photon. Restated, a photon is just a pattern in the time spacing of energy quanta hitting a material molecular surface. Similarly, magnetism is just a pattern that contains a polarized signature that can be interpreted/perceived by appropriately polarized materials. Of course the quanta can also exist in a more chaotic default state where the bits carry no pattern. I would propose that this default state is the invisible energy that fuels gravity. When attached to an electron or a proton, the energy quanta gives the electron or proton momentum. If the electron or proton is part of an atom, that momentum makes a contribution to the net momentum of the atom. Motion in any large material object must first originate in electrons and protons--capturing momentum consistent with the large objects' motion. In simple truth, the only elementally active or real universe is the one where electrons and protons are pushed by discrete bits of energy quanta. What physics describes as different forms of energy such as heat, thrust, or large object motion, actually have the identical cause of pushed subatomic particles. Summarizing this description relevant to thermodynamics. The second law proposes that energy, or more specifically momentum, fades into forms no longer capable of being cycled through the two states of energy (pushing a matter bit or not pushing a matter bit). I would counter argue that a now freely flying bit of force cannot escape the destiny of one day colliding with a bit of matter. And similarly, every bit of energy currently pushing an electron or proton will someday be freed. The Universe has no usefulness bias, it creates and contains no "waste" momentum. A little difference that makes all the difference... Charge What has been previously described is a simple push universe. Active bits of energy give motion to intrinsically inactive bits of matter. Adding a small bit of nuance to that mechanism will provide the grounding for all the more complex functions observed in the universe. It is well established that electrons and protons have an opposite character. They have some feature that enables them to see each other differently and to be "forced" to react differently. Their behavior can be perfectly modeled adding the same feature to the bits of force. By Imagining the force to similarly have two forms, electron active Force and proton active Force interactions between force and matter can be made slightly different but significantly more complex. With two kinds of force and two kinds of matter a third interaction can be added to the two regular possibilities of absorption and reflection. The simple third interaction would be a conversion of force type ie. if an electron Force bit hits a proton it is converted into a proton bit upon exiting and vice versa. This third interaction gives electrons and protons their function of charge. Perfectly consistent with maxwell's drawings of charge, the electron will only radiate electron Force, and the proton will only radiate proton Force. Being that proton force is inert to electrons and electron forces is inert to protons no pushing pressure will be created between electrons and protons. In the contrary circumstance where two matter bits of the same type interact both will be radiating a strong pushing force tending to drive them in opposites directions. Simple outline of the possible interactions: Absorption: When a force bit hits a matter bit of the same type, if the matter bit has no velocity or has some portion of its velocity in the same direction that the force bit is moving, the force bit sticks and adds its momentum to the matter bit. Reflection: If a force bit hits a matter bit of the same type and the matter bit has some element of velocity in the opposing direction the force bit is reflected back on its path and a bit of force previously captured by the matter bit is released in the opposite direction. Conversion: If a force bit hits a matter bit of the opposite type the force bit merely passes through the matter bit without sharing momentum and the force bit will have its type changed to that of the matter bit. These three interactions will cause electrons to repel electrons, protons to repel protons, and electrons and protons to attract. It eats entropy and makes matter hot and fat with complexity ... Gravity I would first state that gravity is more an effect, than a Cause. Gravity is not itself a substance, it is an event. What is known with certainty is that gravity behaves exactly like light emitted from a spherical body (a Son) the only difference being a difference in Direction-- light diverges obeying the inverse Square law, gravity converges obeying the same law. Light Heats or pushes on things proportional to the exposed surface area, gravity similarly transfers momentum proportional to material weight/mass. The parallels are too obvious and real to be reasonably ignored. The pushing effect of gravity, like the effect of sun Tanning, is being caused by force. Real bits of energy burn skin and real bits of energy push matter toward the center of an earth. The short story of gravity is understanding it as a simple Force differential ie. more Force pushing you in than Force pushing you out. What creates the differential is the fact that energy has its speed reduced when pushing matter and that energy delayed is in some sense energy lost. In other words, when matter moves it retards the force moving it and that force will be late getting where it would have been-- the "would have been" in this case equalizing the force pushing something into the Earth. Put still another way: Matter pushing towards the center of the Earth is distracting energy from its would have been role of equalizing the force pressure an object would have experienced if the Earth did not exist. Primarily unrecognized by physics is the correlation between gravitation and heat. Large objects in space have hot cores. This heat is the byproduct of the constant cumulative pressure being exerted from all directions by mass pushing towards the core. If you were to build an Earth in space by incrementally adding Mass to a meteor sized object-- it's gravity would increase proportional to an increase in internal temperature. An obvious deduction is to see the heat as a measure of how much energy the object retards from balancing the Force in the space surrounding the object. Put simply the heat represents the amount of energy that isn't radiating out of the object, which in turn causes the energy differential between the force pushing in and the force pushing out. The atom A part of the story of physics told badly is the story of how matter transitions/evolves from simple electrons and protons to atoms and molecules. Under-detailed is the the nuance of the atomic nucleus. Atomic nucleus's give elements their character and in large part determine how atoms will interact with each other. Conventional science breaks the accuracy of the narrative by identifying neutrons has something other then it's parts. A neutron is just an electron stuck to a proton. It is the first and smallest dipole. Neutrons are not "neutral" especially in close proximity. An atomic nucleus is not positively charged protons mixed with neutral neutrons. What they are is a 2:1 ratio mixture of protons and electrons. An atomic nucleus only has a net positive charge but still carrys a substantial number of negatively charged electrons. If we could see force/charge and view a nucleus from different points of view you would see places dominated by proton force, but from other locations you could also see electron force dominate. Moving from the nucleus to the orbiting electrons-- I would propose that electrons don't in fact orbit. The exterior electrons are much like the nuclear bits just "falling" into a location where the forces they experience are balanced ie. Just as much repulsion as attraction. For example, if a place on the surface of the nucleus had the arrangement of a proton with an electron on each side, you can understand that an external electron facing the proton would be strongly attracted, but that strong attraction would be countered by the electrons on either side, that although further away, would be producing a combined repulsive Force balancing against the electron getting too close to the proton. This stalemate essentially traps external electrons in specific locations relative to the nucleus. An itemized list of errors in popular physics theory MV vs 1/2VMV 7/10/2024: Video listing some of the many reasons the kinetic energy theorem (1/2vmv) fails reasonable testing. 1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #1 The first argument explains that the thousands of years old testing device of the lever/balance decisively proves that there is no room in real physics for 1/2vmv. The balance allows you to test different masses and velocities and plainly see the equalities. The balance says a 1 Mass going 2 Velocity is the same "energy" as a 2 mass going 1 velocity. The proof of the equality is complete and disputes the argument that the 1 Mass going 2 Velocity has twice the "energy". 1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #1b In this addition to the first argument I describe a spinning top which demonstrates not only equalities in gravitational force but also what masses and velocities are equal as angular momentum. I also include an explanation of how gravity actually works to produce momentum. 1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #2 This video deals with thrust and work using the examples of moving a spaceship (or object in space) and the ballistic pendulum. What is demonstrated is that kinetic energy (if it was real) can't be collected as a form of energy that can be converted to work or more precisely momentum. Experiments show that momentum is conserved and kinetic energy cannot be conserved without creating free or extra momentum. 1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #3 This video generally deals with collisions where kinetic energy is not conserved and it is demonstrated that if it was real it can't do any real work. Also referenced his lack of consistency with mechanisms like electricity where the parallel function of voltage is not squared. There is also a light reference to the fact that moving fluids do not behave consistent with kinetic energy Theory. 1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #4 This video explains how gravitational force is collected and clearly illustrates it is a Time dependent force. Viewed as a Distance dependent Force creates paradoxical inconsistencies with what is known about weight. Also Illustrated are Galilean principles that explain why faster objects can travel proportionally more distance. It is demonstrated that the cause of this effect is the fact that friction is seldom linearly consistent. 1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #5 This video deals with substances like water and wind and points out that any contrived increase in kinetic energy cannot be converted into useful work. Momentum is what is conserved because momentum is all there is. 1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #6 This video asks the question do you really believe it takes 25 times this fuel to spin something five times as fast? The video goes on to explain how wrong assumptions regarding how gravity functions instigated a lot of bad science. The leibnizian Axiom that 4 lbs dropped one foot is the same energy as 1 lb dropped 4 ft is False. The false theory is Restated in the formula F=mgh (The correct formula is F=mgt ...gravity is a time-dependent force) The false Axiom has never been tested by credible experiment. No experimental references/sources The Axiom can be restated as a 1 mass going 2 units of velocity is the same energy as a 4 mass going 1 unit of velocity. The Axiom is proven incorrect by decisive experimental evidence. A lever/balance clearly demonstrates that a 1 mass traveling 4 units of velocity is the same force/energy as a 4 mass traveling 1 velocity. A rotating wheel In either a vertical or horizontal configuration provides confirming evidence. Misunderstanding the true physics of energy is catastrophically destructive to the development of accurate and coherent physical Theory. Errors in the foundation compound into more errors net Force = the total (net) change in momentum Gravity imposes momentum at a "rate" of 9.8 meters of velocity per "1" second interval. What would our atomic weight be if electrons have the same mass as protons? Can't link to any good evidence No evidence it takes 25 times the fuel to rotate something five times faster. Pressurized fluids a water hose their theory predicts I can change the energy of the pressure by changing the size of the exit valve. Water has more energy if you narrow what it flows through The ballistic pendulum demonstrates kinetic energy to be Phantom energy. Kinetic energy can't be converted into momentum You have to use momentum to make heat. Heat is momentum The liever or balance proves a 1 Mass going 4 velocity equals a 4 Mass going 1 velocity. Newton wouldn't have proposed the third law if he believed in mv squared The free momentum experiments Can the same spring produce different momentums? Low friction carts that don't store their energy as linear velocity. Heavy small wheels fast rotating axle Energy can never cancel... It must produce motion and matter are speed of light radiation. An amount of movement cannot make more movement. There is no free momentum. The Paradox of twice the momentum forward and a unit of momentum backward. Spinning top Proves the weights don't balance ... The gravitational force collected is not equal Also proves that the linear or angular momentum produced by the force that spun the top is not balanced or apportioned equally. The top will wobble and process Law the lever is good solid science 1/2 MV squared is not good science it isn't even good religion because it makes claims it can be falsified or proven wrong fails testing Their counter argument The lever can't detect the hidden kinetic energy? I will present in this paper a logical argument proving that momentum is the only real energy in the universe that momentum is the only quantity conserved through interactions exchanges and that the known facts cannot be collectively organized to support the claim that there is any such thing as a "living Force" formalized in the equation 1/2 MV squared The bad Science History A unproven by experiment axiom Contradicts the well-proven law of the lever The next bad science chapter Madame Denting clay Rolling objects Sand explosions The next bad chapter Contrived a set of circular formulas to support the theory The jewel experiments Dropping things in gravity Force changes with time exposed to the force The experiments Water hose water wheel One half the volume at twice the speed cannot do more work Navigating in space landing on the moon 25 times the force 5 times the velocity Represent catastrophic failures that would render the theory inviable if not majority held Heat is momentum, weight is momentum, thrust is momentum The two concepts of motion are not compatible as both cannot be conserved when energy is transferred between unlike masses In every case tested momentum is conserved The bad show experiments air tracks add energy Low friction carts designed with wheel structures that store a lot of angular momentum Guns and Newton's third law The law can't be applied Impotent energy