Conservation Laws And Energy...Those who believe energy can't be created because of Energy Conservation may be assuming what they're trying to prove. Indeed, if gravity is continually winding up the cosmos, so it doesn't wind down by entropy over infinite time with thermodynamic and other energy conserved by quanta it seems the field may be continually creating itself with outside influence to power the motion, otherwise there would be an infinite amount of motion over infinite time with no power source. (If there's a power source at any rate it's more of worth than no power source for the infinite amount of motion if most other power around us has a source and cause.)

On this page I'll offer up my belief that inertial and gravitational mass or mass and energy may not be the same as Einstein thought. With no distinction they would be the same and we would have no way of knowing which was which. Einstein believed that in regions of more massive gravity, inertial mass would increase. First I'd like to reiterate a bit; If they are often unalike there is a distinction between them by my definition;

Gravitational mass is the tendancy for a body to remain at rest and increase angular momentum, and inertial mass is the tendancy for mass to continue in motion and move more in a straight line.

Gravitational mass and inertial mass are like Einstein's mass energy, with the Equivalence of both being because energy and inertia are more like linear motion, and mass, both gravitational and prosaic are about unity of the field to hold the mass together. One or the other of these two is more important so you don't have two exactly equal but opposite truths. I think the more important of the two is mass and gravity for three reasons; because the cosmos must be held together by gravity or it would have expanded out over infinite time with energy (in quanta) mostly being neither created or destroyed; because in the history of science as with Galelio or Newton or even Einstein, improvements in gravity have been the most of worth to physics, not just other science like the physics of sound; and because all the field seems unified (attraction) by one lower energy field. Thus by this law the assumption that Newton and Einstein made about the most natural way for a body to move being in uniform motion unless acted on from the outside may be of worth to understand how energy conservation and gravity work. The most natural way for the cosmos to move in general by my definition would be by the greater imbalance of force, not balance, otherwise there would be no change of motion, or cause winding up the cosmos, and the cosmos would have wound down. The Earth has greater gravity and gravitational mass than the Moon, and the Sun more than the Earth, so the Sun and The Earth are more at rest. Relative to the Earth, the Moon has more inertial mass so it moves faster in its orbit and in more linear motion. Unlike Einstein's assumption that all masses fall at the same rate where the F=ma law only applies in radial acceleration, a lighter asteroid or comet moving past a star like the sun is usually seen by astronomers to move faster than a heavy one by conservation of linear and angular momentum. F=ma holds both for the more distant comet and for two masses dropped near the earth because what Galelio and Einstein assumed would be arbitrary that they must be raised to the same height. Otherwise with comets or horizontal masses you would always have to add just the right amount of the force to make the heavy mass move along with the lighter mass at the same speed. Einstein believed force wasn't important and that gravitational and inertial mass in balance would be the same. Many more proofs exist of conservation of linear and angular momentum than of the Equivalence principle, and all the known proofs of Energy Conservation are evidence that with Einstein's Equivalence Principle he was assuming what he was trying to prove. If you apply the same force you can lift the lighter mass higher and drop it farther and faster like with the monthly slosh of the moon and the earth, force is more important to distinguish between masses because the cosmos is more about force and mass than Einstein's empty passive space time. By this definition of gravitational and inertial mass, mass and energy are distinct. Einstein predicted increase in inertial mass with strong gravity. If mass and energy were the same with more gravitational mass and with pressure the inertial mass would also be greater. If inertial mass is by the definition resistance to stopping and tendancy to remain in more linear motion and gravity causes rest with more density of the mass, more compression would reduce the mass defined to be inertia by my causology. Thus this idea as it relates to Energy Conservation seems to predict that a mass moving through the more dense field would have more resistance and the inertial mass would not augument as Einstein believed.

To measure this, since centrifugal force is the tendancy to travel in more linear motion, in greater gravity, a particle or mass with reduced inertia may curve more downward under the influence of the field, not less as Einstein believed.

Mass and energy aren't the same. If they were exactly the same it would be a world without all of what's seen seen when the RN at the opthomatrists lights up for 300! Weight is reduced at the low latitudes because the inertial mass is more, so in my causology any ratio of gravitational to inertial mass is possible (and the same would be true for mass and energy because they are much the same.). Even if motion is what the universe is about and no doubt important, what the motion is made of is also of more worth in what may be my more encompassing physics, this part of my causology of General Wave Dynamics.

In GWD, Newton's Third Law in more general use is the foundation of the cosmos. Because it's based on balance like a scale, in general it's the same as energy conservation which is what conservation laws like conservation of electric charge are based on. The simplest and most general type of symmetry would just be the (all important and simple) linear balance of action and reaction pairs.

A problem with this unified law about balance. If all the cosmos is based on this unified law and it's balance would seem to stop motion, how is all the matter and energy in motion? This problem may be solved if the opposite forces of Newton's Third Law are actually not equal and there would always be left over force, even if just a bit. Newton's Third Law can be combined with Newton's First and Second Law because balance is more general so in this formulation the First Law of force would be combined with the Second Law of inertia into the Third Law of balance of the First and Second Law. And this is also the distinction between mass and inertia, if they were exactly the same in action reaction pairs e.g. like matter and antimatter, no overall change could take place.

Another reason in favor of this unified law is that its much the same as the symmetry laws that have been proven to be the foundations of math like in set theory (the more math shines the more she stays the same.). Sets are a collection of objects, based on what changes, the individual elements, and what stays the same, the oneness that they are in the same unified set. This is the same as Newton's First Law about force or more unifying forces like gravity, the Oneness of acceleration of F=ma, and Newton's The Second Law with the Many in the centrifugal force of more linear motion like the expansion outward of entropy. Like waves and particles, there is no more simple foundation by any science concieviable.

Inertia itself is based on balanced uniform motion. This might seem to be enough to create the balance of energy conservation, if no force is in the rest frame of inertia or uniform motion. Balance on all sides by definition is inertia. Even so if all motion were linear and uniform like the hot particles of the air in an airship, the overall linear motion of each atom of the air inside it would expand out farther and further without much adhesive force between the air molecules, so by inertia alone all the matter of the cosmos with infinite time of thermodynamic energy being neither created or destroyed would have expansion and no limit, and we would have no soap operas! The balance of inertia is not complete for energy conservation, and there must be attraction to hold the airship and centrifugal force without too much outward expansion via gravity or other forces of implosion. Without a more distinct definition of gravitational mass and inertia, gravity wouldn't uphold the law of inertia well because if it did as Einstein held all masses would fall at the same rate because all motion would be uniform with the constant speed of light. The speed of light changes with gravity, and masses fall at different rates when the mass is changed. All the proofs of General Relativity like the change in the orbit of Mercury (other than the same rate of masses dropped from the same height where Einstein held the opposite idea to be proven in contradiction), the Mossbauer effect, frame dragging, the bending of starlight, are about changes in acceleration, not just acceleration and are proofs of Einstein, not gravity. The changing speed of light around massive bodies is because more massive bodies are more of use to know what mass is about when it connects up with the rest of the cosmos. This would be why so many people at first believed Einstein's relativity was lacking in depth, like the man when he heard the proof of relativity on TV about the eclipse, stomped his foot on the earth and said, "I refute it thus!" Relativity is well proven but not about gravity. While General Relativity supposedly is of worth for uniform fields, gravity is an acceleration, and by definition there are no uniform fields, otherwise we would fall at the same rate on the Moon as the Earth.
If mass and energy are not Equivalent about motion, mass is somewhat unlike energy to keep the cosmos in motion. E=Mc2 with it's assumption of the Equivalence of mass and energy and of centrifugal to gravitational mass has seemed all encompassing because of the ubiquitious "all around" speed of light in relativity. Emc2 has the same general form as F=ma, F, force is much like the Energy, E. The mass is the same, and C2 is an acceleration. Thus F=ma is the same general law as E=mc2 and is the same as the unified law, above, and with it, there is also the same problem of no motion added in from the outside. All the forces convert to units of Emc2, and the speed of light is thermodynamic. Einstein's contributions via relativity and his other improvements about thermodynamics and electricity mediate the vast oceanlike middle realm of science between gravity and the strong force, and relativity seems to hold even with mass and energy not being the same to keep the cosmos in motion. It would do this by having all the particles of subatomic physics spin on the outside just at the speed of light in units of Plank's constant while deeper in the particle to have more mass and density than the electron and it's speed of light it would spin faster than light. This would also explain why Plank's constant is constant and not with some other value, because of relativity and the constant speed of light on the outside of each particle, but not why there are continous masses and wavelengths in subatomic physics, about which relativity and quantum theory have no comment. More mass, higher density, faster speed, may be faster than light. There would be no infinite relativistic mass augumentation in GWD because the charges of subatomic physics lighten up to travel light [fractional charges] and the strong force, being much like gravity may be inefficient because it's mostly a wave and fluid both being only attractive, so it would slide past the electric charges without too much friction even if Faster Than Light. Gravity could go faster than light in general because it's of much different wavelength than the speed of light and its electric field and like an antenna of much unlike power it wouldn't resonate. This is how it may disprove energy conservation because with no resistance or friction gravity could create extra energy with more power violating Energy Conservation at long range like galaxies are seen to spin too fast to stay compact without gravity being stronger, the Gravity Would Be More Efficient Here. Click Here. And if gravity is more efficient at greater than 2 Kpc and the increased force of spin of the galaxies was caused by the increased efficiency, more distance like of the orbits of more galaxies with lower energy, if caused by more efficient gravity would seem to have stronger gravity yet and faster spin than the galaxies if the cause of the higher speed spin is caused by the higher efficiency of gravity.

The wave density motif would be the same method Maxwell used to predict the speed of light well based on the force between electric charges to (hopefully) predict the speed of gravity, the speed of tunneling of the fractional charges, and the speed of the strong force and thus the predicted rate of radioactivity based on the assumption of Faster Than Light and other considerations. CLICK HERE. for this. More or less charge or field density changes the field density more or less so the wave like light is at another speed by way of the density as in my causology of General Wave Dynamics GWD. Even with Faster Than Light motion inside the particles to explain more mass density than via relativity, the speed of light on the outside would control the rate of transfer of momentum by way of E=mc2 because at lower energy and higher radii with relativistic drag, the field would slow to just the speed of light, and relativity is well proven in this realm. In higher energy physics mass and energy are "forced" to behave the same by the quanta. They're numerically alike by the proportional conversion of the mass to energy by Emc2 and this method of Combining Newton's Three Laws with The First Law of Thermodynamics into one Law. But they may not be exactly the same (even numerically) by way of the distinction between mass and energy. With Einstein's mass energy equivalence a hot iron having more energy would have more mass and weigh more even if the amount Einstein predicted was beyond the limit of resolution of 20th century experimental physics. If mass and energy are equivalent, Einstein offered no explanation about why they aren't the same in many respects in more general physics. I believe only if both balance and change are encompassed may the physics be more complete. An airship with more energy and heat wouldn't rise if it has more mass by mass energy equivalence.

Einstein's Mass Energy Equivalance is mostly true for thermodynamics and the First Law holds at moderate energy but I think they may not be so much the same at lower energy where quanta wouldn't not be so sharp in resolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the heat and entropy are always increasing, and gravity is continously flexing heat out of the Earth. Both of these motifs violate the First Law (of Thermodynamics) that energy is conserved. It may seem the First Law is not violated by Entropy because the thermodynamic expansion of entropy is where quantity of motion is conserved, but in general this may not be true at longer range and lower energy because of the problem of infinite expansion of the entropy over infinite time so there most be more implosion than expansion to hold the cosmos together. More motion is continually being created and the field is augumented and this would be disproof of Energy Conservation. Even if we believe the cosmos didn't have to be created and of infinite time because energy is neither created or destroyed, friction would rule, so there may still be continuous creation of the field to keep it in motion. Even with the gravity exactly balanced about the friction, the gravity would be overpowering it so the gravity is doing more work than just a balanced physics, to hold the cosmos and the field in a unified general physics. The possible distinction that would express the basic distinction between mass and energy, of gravitational and inertial mass in experiments in subatomic physics would be smaller and smaller at higher and higher energy. Einstein believed that in the massive gravity of the Earth the electron would have more mass and all electrons actually weigh almost the same. (If motion of the field was relative as Einstein thought, and it was the same to say the earth's field is moving through mass like electrons as to say they were accelerating upward at 32 ft it would be at the speed of light in less than a year and the electrons of the earth would have huge mass by way of relativity.) With gravitational and inertial mass unalike and the mass of the earth and the electron at rest "for real" without Equivalent relative motion of the field causing it, a smaller effect about the amount of extra change may be by way of the radioactive radiation of the Earth. If subtracted from the total heat output and divided into all the particles of the earth the heat output gives the amount of extra power added to each electron or other particle, and this is amount of motion of the field that disproves the absoluteness of the First Law of Thermodynamics. If all the field is unified by energy conservation and gravity achieves this, it seems possible the other forces would do the same at least somewhat. Because this would essentially be a Unified Field and shielding would also be a prediction of this idea, the extra power of mass would be much like that of shielding, to add in more power of the electron, there would be as much friction to cause the interaction. The Lamb Shift of Hydrogen may also be disproof of energy conservation. With the self adhesion of the field more mass exists than by just the First Law of Thermodynamics, actually with any self adhesion or expansion of the field, or the distinction of waves and particles, there is disproof of Einstein's absolute Equivalence of Mass and Energy.In subatomic physics because the quanta hold the electric charges so well to uphold relativity, the amount of distinction to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics would not be large. Like the quantum well of radioactivity, even in subatomic physics at higher energy with a small outflow in the side of the well there would be a small change in the conversion of mass to energy that would be proof the mass and energy aren't equal even if mostly equivalent, this would be reduced in more massive particle interactions where the quantum well is more solid. (The lower energy wells would have more change because the wall of the well is not so high or deep so it would be easier for more energy to flow in (and from itself like gravity it being of the same field and unified)). This amount would be common with the degree of the well, and the density of the field.

...

THE LOGIC OF ENERGY CONSERVATION

In math there is the use of disproof by contradiction. If energy conservation is based on Newton's Third Law unified with the other 5 Laws with opposite action reaction pairs causing most of the physics, it would seem by energy conservation and Relativity this can't be used as disproof of anything because it would be proof of all there is. Relativity has all observers equal so all truth and falshood are the same by the logic of relativity. Only if energy conservation was based on more of one than the other with each action reaction would there be no absolute energy conservation. Matter with more mass wouldn't be exactly the same as antimatter with more energy and would perhaps fall at another rate than via Einstein's causology. This would be why a particle in subatomic physics with no charge, even if made of a plus and minus that would cancel has a bit of leftover charge like the neutron which is made of a proton and electron. The mass is not quite the same as Einstien would have perhaps believed. Another reason Einstein's causology seemed so improbable to many people, with mass and energy the same, is like the exact equivalence of + and - electric charges of equivalent mass and energy (an electron has more energy and a positron more mass) true and false, bad and good would be the same, and a vast realm of logic from the egyptians and greeks down to our time and science would be disproven. If mass and energy were more exactly the same, opposite masses like the earth and moon would be exactly the same like electric charges, this in support of my conclusion that Einstein's belief about mass and energy is mostly derived from electric charges, and the speed of light alone, rather than the deeper truth about the distinction between mass and energy being what may be the ultimate cause of the motion of mass and energy in the cosmos. The idea that all motion comes from other motion and is circular reasoning, not the outside force of the lower power field energising up the rest of the field. There are no perfect deductive systems. Science shows in the real world there are no absolute proofs like Euclid with his geometry. There is always at least some possibility more complex outside influences will make any deductive argument invalid with it's perfect conclusions from the evidence and no more. Mathemeticians now believe Euclid's proofs are more like a philosopher king than a king with absolute rule, and there's evidence that the axioms of math are not perfect as they would be via Einstein's belief. The idea of proof of a theorem used in math by disproof of the opposite would be valid only if matter and energy were equivalent. With mass and energy not = there would always be a slight probability that proof by disproof of the opposite wouldn't work. The cosmos wouldn't uphold energy conservation by this definition about gravity at great distances because the universe is self powering. By definition there's nothing outside the cosmos. (The cosmos must be a contained unit of finite mass or the infinite mass would have already engulfed the world and Lite Booze Commercials!) The degree to which mass is unlike energy in the given problem to solve would determine how improbable it was that proof by disproof of the opposite wasn't absolute. This is why in the history of math, math with more deductive proof like Euclidean has mostly followed science with induction, not science following math because proof by exclusion without evidence would be like mass and energy being in perfect balance so much there would be no change, and causology by union would be circular reasoning without more experiments to prove or disprove a given conjecture.

It will be a boom to many pro sports to go computerized. Free radicals running around at colleges flood the circulation with exercise, and they have the same basketball conversation with each go round of the win, but I've never had a basketball say a curse or other oath like *(%^#@#$! The player wears the wear with cyber opponents between the player and the hoop, by action without them for 3 points and then making moves with the other players trying to win, and from greater and greater distance with assured wins with each improvement like a reflex arc, this will improve the scores in most pro basketball games, much like chess has improved by way of training with machines, the value of machines like this would be higher than osteoporosis! This would have auto cyber return of the power, for anyone to be with power click here OLIVE LEAF.. For more advanced moves like rebounds and other moves between players real training would be of worth, even though it may improve scores and more basic moves. Who wants to just type in and click a rebound? Here's How! (CYBER SPORTS).

...