The Nature of Energy
There seems to be some confusion in respect to our perception of energy and its relationship to mass.
I was recently informed that the ratio of energy per unit of mass was the same for all materials. But what makes this interesting is the fact that the informant was a well known scientist involved with the new accelerator under construction in Europe.
I know that this man is not stupid, in fact he is extremely bright, but he does insist that the ratio of energy per unit of mass is the same for all materials, as only the mass of a material determines its energy potential. In other words E=MC2 is valid for all materials, regardless of whether it is hydrogen or uranium, in relation to an equal mass of each element having an equal energy potential. Both masses would have an equal ratio of energy per unit of mass, which leaves a single hydrogen atom with a very low ratio of energy per unit of mass.
So why would anyone think that the ratio of energy per unit of mass would be different for each and every element appearing on the periodic table?
It depends on what you define as energy, in relation to the question; exactly what is energy?
Is energy the product of a fuel which is consumed or altered in order to do work and or perform some function? Do we derive energy from coal, wood, gas, sugar, starch etc?
Of course all materials have energy, but is it possible to extract that energy as an actual force of energy?
In order for this to be possible requires that energy radiate or be made to radiate, whereby energy would be considered to a resistant force. An increase in energy would affect an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy. The key words are; an increase in resistance.
How could an increase in resistance be associated with an increase in energy, as this would suggest that there should not be any available energy to do work or perform functions?
It is commonly accepted that a force of energy is required and or applied in order to move an otherwise stationary object, such as a bowling ball or a train. This means that the application of energy is very definitely limited and or determined by the mass of the object to be moved.
This would mean that energy was limited to linear applications, in that a certain quantity of energy must be applied to move a train a certain distance at a certain speed. And if coal or diesel fuel is used to operate the train, the operation of the train is limited to the supply of fuel.
It is also commonly accepted that the mass of the train increases as it accelerates, which means that the energy of the train itself is increasing in proportion to an increase in mass. But is this true?
How can there be an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy associated with an actual increase in energy proportional to an increase in mass?
Is mass proportional to energy and is energy proportional to mass?
In a general sense you could say that the larger mass of a specific material has the greater energy, but that is where it ends.
Take a simple hydrogen atom and ask yourself what it is which sustains and perpetuates the existence of the hydrogen atom? The answer of course is energy, but what exactly is this energy that allows the hydrogen atom to exist and continue existing?
Most would jump in with, atomic energy, or something similar, but what exactly is atomic energy and has anyone ever clearly defined its existence?
The answer is no. No one has clearly defined the existence of atomic energy, with the key word being energy.
They have clearly shown that there is a factor of resistance associated with the structure of atoms, which allows for nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons etc. But at no time has anyone accessed the energy of an atom for any purpose.
How could the energy of an atom be accessed by fission or by fusion? It isn’t and it can’t be done.
We have made an error, as we have mistakenly accepted a false assumption of fact in respect to the idea that energy remains proportional to mass regardless of the material involved.
We assume that more mass always equals more energy without further qualification, when in fact the smaller mass always has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass, which allows the hydrogen atom to have the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass for any known element.
Why? Because if energy was in fact resistant atomic elements would not last more than a fraction of a second before folding on themselves and vanishing from sight.
In order to sustain the structural dynamics of any atomic structure requires a continuous supply of energy which is steadily increasing. And the reason why the energy supply must be steadily increasing is because the dynamics of any physical structure are determined on the basis of a dynamic differential in energy and resistance with the energy focused symmetrically to the center of field and resistance isometrically radiating from the center of field.
From this we can see that mass remains proportional to resistance and not energy, always.
If energy is focused to the center of field it would appear impossible for it to radiate, as energy, the underlying force of universe, is a non-resistant force, where an increase in energy affects a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy.
Oh but, what about fission, doesn’t this process access this underlying energy? No, all it does is extend the external dynamics and increase the factor of resistance. You cannot access the internal portion of field from the external portion of field; all you can do is extend the external portion.
You could strip an atom into its subatomic components and still not access the underlying energy of field, as the energy is focused inward and not outward, it refuses to radiate.
The only way energy can be made to radiate requires the underlying dynamics be reversed, which would result in some very unpleasant effects.
In that the greater mass is more resistant to the underlying dynamics of universe, the greater mass of a particular material has a lower dynamic ratio of energy per unit of mass than a smaller mass of the same material.
So is it any wonder that our perception of energy is based on the consumption of mass. And the faster we consume mass the more energy we generate.
Generally speaking our perception of energy is associated with a destructive process, where we assume that by destroying this we can create that. Such as burning coal or gas to provide heat etc.
If energy was a destructive force it would not be capable of creating or allowing for the processes of life or for the construction of physical materials.
Energy in the truest sense provides for a differential in energy associated with the dynamics of physical structure, in relation to the various forms and functions involved.
Energy is directly associated with an underlying force which can only be quantified in terms of a relative non-linear relationship.
If energy was in fact proportional to mass, how would we describe the process determining the inherent characteristics of each atomic element other than as a mechanical arrangement involving interchangeable parts constituting units of energy remaining proportional to their mass.
The high energy requirements of mass less particles said to be traveling close to the speed of light is due to their mass less character, yet a mass less particle should have no energy and of course no resistance either. But nonetheless mass less particles are considered to be a part of our universe, despite the fact that it would be impossible to impart resistant energy into and or to a mass less particle.
The inherent characteristics of each atomic element are determined by a unique ratio of energy per unit of mass, in relation to a specific ratio of energy to mass determining the specific form and function of each element.
If the underlying force of energy can be modulated in a controlled manner, whereby affecting the dynamics of physical structure, it should be possible to not only alter the space and motion remaining relative to each system of reference, but change the inherent characteristics of any known element in order to compensate for a shortage of another element.
We can increase and or decrease the energy of any system, but we cannot achieve direct access to the internal energy involved. But what we can do is employ the underlying differential in energy and resistance to fuel our human industry.