by Jim Mash
Last Updated 21/11/2017
Fluid Energy Theory
An entirely new theory based upon energy being a real substance

Chapter 3 - Energy

From observations made over hundreds of years, the thinking mind has been able to conduct numerous experiments from which it has been concluded that although changes are occurring all the time, one underlying principle has emerged:

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed and therefore the total energy of the universe has been constant during our period of study.

This observation should immediately make you suspicious of the big bang theory which requires all of the energy of the universe to have been produced in a single instant and then very rapidly converted into its various forms. If energy was suddenly created out of nothing once then why hasn’t more energy been created since and why can’t energy disappear again? But if energy cannot be created nor destroyed then it must always have existed and if it has always existed there must always have been a place where it existed.

If you were to ask a physicist to describe energy he would tell you that there are two main categories of energy; kinetic and potential. Kinetic energy is motion and comes in the form of thermal energy, or heat, that is associated with the vibrations and rotations of atoms and molecules; radiant energy, which includes radio waves, microwaves, infra red, visible and ultra violet light, X-rays and γ–rays; electrical energy, which is the movement of electrical charges; sound, which is the movement of energy through substances via the vibrations of atoms and molecules and finally motion energy, which is the movement of objects that have been subjected to a force.

Potential energy is stored energy and exists as mechanical energy stored within, for example, a wound up spring; chemical energy, which is energy stored within the bonds between atoms and molecules; nuclear energy, which is energy stored within the nuclei of all atoms and holds the nucleons together; mass, which is the most compact form of energy and is stored within every nucleon; and finally gravity, which is energy stored by a substance as a result of being in a gravitational field. Energy is also discussed in terms of the ability or capacity to do work.

Then there is the energy of space itself, often referred to as zero point energy. Until FET no one knew how much energy is stored in space. Calculations have varied from close to zero to greater than 10150 times that thought to be theoretically possible. There is also a lot of discussion nowadays about a mysterious form of energy called dark energy, which is supposed to be the cause of space expanding. We even talk about psychological, spiritual and emotional energy. Energy has so many forms and definitions that it is no wonder no one can give a straight answer to the question, what is energy? Although I have come across one or two statements that energy is the fundamental substance of the universe, what no one will tell you is that:

Energy is a real, tangible substance, whether it is in the form of matter, radiation or motion.

But let us suppose that energy is a real substance. What advantages does it have over the present concept? One of the unanswered questions encountered when scientists seek to explain how everything is built up from small building blocks is, just where do you stop looking for ever smaller fundamental particles? At one time it was thought that an atom was the smallest possible particle and then it was discovered that atoms could be split apart and so must be composed of even smaller particles. These were identified as the neutron, proton and electron. Then, in order to explain how these particles could exist together it was suggested that protons and neutrons were made up of quarks and gluons.

There are some that now believe that all particles are nothing more than tiny strings with their properties being defined by the frequency at which they vibrate. Either you can consider that there really is a limit to the smallest size of particle or else you can go on finding smaller and smaller particles ad infinitum. The latter obviously leads you nowhere but if there is a finite limiting particle size then you have the problem of working out why there is a limit. I therefore reasoned that in order to avoid the problem of a limiting size I could consider a particle that is not finite in size but is instead infinitesimal, which means that if energy is a real substance then it is not made of particles at all but is instead a continuous substance.

This immediately imposes a number of properties upon energy. First of all, if energy is continuous then it must extend throughout the whole of space. If it did not extend everywhere and there were spaces somewhere that were empty then it would have to have a boundary there. And if it could have even the smallest boundary then there is no reason why that boundary could not be extended completely around an area of energy thus isolating it, whereupon it could no longer be continuous. Secondly, it must be the only substance that exists otherwise there would have to be a boundary between energy and that other substance and once again that substance could completely surround energy causing it to become isolated. This led me to conclude that there is another natural law:

Energy is the only substance that exists.

We can then deduce from this law that;

Everything that exists must consist solely of energy!

If everything is made from the same substance then how is it that the universe is teeming with a large number of substances with very different appearances and properties, and radiation with a wide spectrum of energies? The answer must be that energy can exist in different forms. We already know this to be the case so the next question is how can energy take on these different forms?

We are all familiar with the fact that water can exist as a solid that keeps its own shape, or as a liquid that in a gravitational field flows and takes the shape of the vessel in which it is contained, or as an invisible vapour that expands into all available space. It takes on these very different forms simply as a result of changing its temperature. At high temperatures the molecules of water split apart into separate atoms and at even higher temperatures the atoms themselves split apart to form a plasma state. Although it is a rising temperature that apparently causes these phase changes they can be reversed by pressure. Thus water vapour can be converted from a low density gas into a higher density liquid by compressing it even at temperatures above its normal boiling point. The different forms of water are therefore the result of the distances between the water molecules.

This suggested to me that energy could take on various forms as a result of having different densities. The highest energy densities that we know of are those within the nuclear matter particles, i.e. neutrons and protons and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that these particles are the result of energy being compressed into its equivalent of the solid state. It would then seem reasonable to assume that the spaces between particles, which must also contain energy, consist of energy in a much more rarefied form, just like a gas or plasma, and could be what has been considered for many centuries to be the aether.

The notion that energy is a real substance that can take on different forms as a result of density changes raises two interesting questions, how is the energy of the aether compressed to create particles and how much energy is there in an infinite universe? The answer to the first question will shortly be revealed but first I will discuss the quantity of energy that exists.

If there was an infinite amount of energy in the universe then, using the same argument as to the number of stars in an infinite universe, it would be impossible to add any more energy to it. We know roughly the sizes of neutrons and protons and we know how much energy is in each of these particles. We can therefore calculate the energy densities of these particles. It is generally assumed, but not proven, that a neutron is slightly larger than a proton and that their energy densities are identical. This is a reasonable assumption if we assume that both of these particles are composed of energy in its “solid” state.

This energy density has a definite value which is nowhere near to being infinite and therefore it is theoretically possible to compress the energy of a neutron into an even higher density. Note that it is only a theoretical possibility because there are no known regions of space that have higher energy densities than the nuclear particles. When we calculate the energy density of an atom (i.e. not just the nucleus but the space also occupied by its electrons) we find that it is many orders of magnitude less than that of a neutron.

This is why it has been speculated that stars above a certain size generate a gravitational field strong enough to collapse atoms down to the same density as neutrons, which are then called neutron stars. The density of the aethereal energy outside of atoms is even less than that of an atom thus there is plenty of scope to add more energy into the universe. Consequently the total amount of energy in the universe must be much less than an infinite amount even if the universe extends in all directions to infinity.

A further argument against the universe containing an infinite amount of energy is that if we define infinity as being the maximum amount of a substance, then a universe that contained an infinite amount of energy could not accommodate any more energy. This implies that there would be no regions of space where the existing energy could be compressed any further to make room for additional energy. In order to compress energy it must be moved from one region to another, and as this would be impossible there could be no movement possible if there was an infinite amount of energy. Because movement is possible in our universe it means that it cannot contain an infinite amount of energy.

This line of reasoning tells us that if all the energy of the universe was evenly spread out then it would have a finite value, and this must be the average energy density in the universe. But it is not evenly spread out because some of the energy is compressed into particles of much higher density. Consequently the remaining spaces between the particles must have a lower energy density than the average value. Hence we have deduced that most of the universe consists of an aethereal part, which I prefer to call the continuum, which has the lowest energy density, with regions of much higher density known as particles. Radiation can then be considered to be either fluctuations in the energy density being transmitted at light speed or as particles of intermediate energy density between that of the aether and neutrons.

So how can the great variety of things from stars to atoms, plants to animals and cars to oceans all be made out of pure energy and how can forces be explained? We have been used to thinking of substances as being made up of smaller components for such a long time that it is difficult to imagine how a continuous substance would behave. If we were to cut through a sheet of paper and separate the pieces we would be convinced that we had two smaller sheets of paper that were in no way connected. If energy is a continuous substance and paper is made entirely from energy we should not be able to cut it into smaller isolated pieces and therefore what would happen if we attempted to do so. Would we be left with a small string of energy joining the two parts together or would we have a very thin film of energy still linking them together? This is a tricky question to answer as after all, the scissors we used to cut the paper must have come between the two pieces from one side to other so how could they still be joined together?

The answer though is amazingly simple but it will only become obvious when I have explained how it is that energy is able to exist in different states of compression. Atomic particles contain vast quantities of energy confined inside a very small volume whereas photons have far less energy and can be billions of times larger than an atom. This tells us that if energy is a real substance then it must be extremely compressible. But what is it that is able to compress energy into such high densities? The answer to that is motion.

When we think of motion we usually think of moving from one location to another. This is known as translational motion. Newton's first law of motion states that “every object in a state of uniform motion along a straight line remains in that state unless an external force is applied”. We know that when we set an object in motion upon the Earth it gradually comes to rest because frictional forces slowly destroy its motion. In space, where friction is almost eliminated, a satellite keeps moving at a constant speed in a straight line unless it comes under the influence of a gravitational field.

If planets all had circular orbits then we would find that they too would keep moving at a uniform rate as they orbit the Sun. The gravitational pull of the Sun is the force that constantly changes the direction in which a planet moves but it does not change its speed. Now when it comes to circular motion the forces that control the change of direction or speed are referred to as the centrifugal and centripetal forces. A centrifugal (from the Latin centrum “centre” and fugere “flee”) force refers to a force acting away from the centre of rotation of an object in circular motion and a centripetal (from the Latin petere “tend towards”) force acts towards the centre..

It is possible to demonstrate the centrifugal force by spinning a weight around that is tied to a length of string (figure 25a). We can sense the centrifugal force as a pull upon our arm, and the heavier the weight and the faster the spin, the greater the pull upon our arm, and hence the greater the centrifugal force. It is this centrifugal force that is constantly changing the direction of motion of the weight and its speed.

Figure 25 The planets obviously are not tied to the Sun by string and therefore it is not the centrifugal force that keeps them in orbit but the centripetal force. The source of the centripetal force is the Sun’s gravity, which acts upon the planets to constantly alter the directions of their translational motions. It is also the gravitational force that keeps our feet firmly upon the ground. Although we are not aware of any spinning motion, the Earth’s gravity is the centripetal force acting to push us towards the centre of the planet.

Newton's third law of motion states that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. It is therefore assumed that because the centrifugal and centripetal forces act in opposite directions, one is the reaction to the other and therefore they must always be of equal strengths. This though is not the case. I will show later that there are circumstances where the centripetal force is constant and only the centrifugal force changes.

There is a lot of confusion, even amongst scientists, as to what these forces are. They are often claimed not to be real forces but are described as “force requirements”. But just as I have claimed energy to be a real substance I am claiming that both the centrifugal and the centripetal forces are real forces.

Before I explain what the forces are I will describe another way that we can experience the effect of forces when we spin around. Find yourself a swivel chair and with your arms and legs outstretched start to spin yourself around (figure 25b). Once you are moving, fold in your arms and legs and you will immediately start to spin faster. Stretching them out again slows you down.

Both the swinging of a weight and the spinning on a chair are examples associated with everyday objects that are composed of what are known as particulate substances, i.e. the weight, string, chair and even our bodies are made up from atoms that are temporarily held together by atomic bonds.

Figure 26If energy is a continuous substance as I have claimed then how will this react when it is spun? The simplest analogy I can think of to illustrate the difference between the spinning of a particulate substance and the spinning of a continuous substance is to consider the spinning of something that we always think of as being made up of particles together with something that can at least appear to be continuous and which can be easily moved by a force, such as a bucket of water with a length of string floating around in it as shown in figure 26. Although I stated above that string is a particulate substance, for the purpose of this example you will have to imagine that it cannot be broken and is therefore continuous.

The spinning action can be simulated by placing a stirrer into the bucket. We see that as the water starts to spin it is thrown outwards to the sides of the container. The faster we stir the more the water is pushed outwards. Because water cannot pass through the walls or the bottom of the bucket, the displaced water can only move up the sides.

The string on the other hand gets caught up in the stirrer and becomes wound upon it as a ball. By considering water to be particulate and string as being continuous then we can see that particulate substances are thrown outwards but continuous substances are drawn inwards. The only proviso is that the string has to become attached to the stirrer.

We will now combine the bucket and stirrer experiment with the spinning chair experiment. Imagine a tray filled with fluid energy into which we have a number of lengths of string to represent its continuous nature. I have shown only a few lengths in figure 27 but in reality the whole region can be considered to have strings everywhere and in all directions.

Figure 27 If two objects such as billiard balls are moving in opposite directions and pass close by without colliding, then the only influence that one particle has upon the motion of the other is via their respective gravitational pulls and because of their small size this will be negligible.

However, when two ripples in energy pass in opposite direction they will have an effect upon each other as energy is not particulate but is instead a continuous substance. Ripples, which are only moving regions of energy having a higher density than their surroundings, will pull upon each other where they pass and therefore begin to rotate around each other. The rotation of a continuous substance will generate a centripetal force, which is the opposite to the centrifugal force that forces mass outwards, and so these regions will draw in even more energy, increasing the local energy density.

The pulling in of fluid energy may become clearer if we place two sticks in the surface and move them in opposite directions past each other. As they push the strings ahead of them, the drag of the strings pull upon the sticks and forces them to start moving in a circular motion around each other. This circular motion draws in more string and therefore the amount of string in the tray increases. This is equivalent to when we sat in the spinning chair and folded in our arms and legs. The spin rate automatically increases in response to the increased concentration of mass at the centre. So once a spinning motion has been initiated in a continuous substance it becomes not only self sustaining but the speed increases as well. And as the speed increases it draws in even more fluid energy and the speed increases at an even faster rate. In this way the very first energy whirlpools were created.

Notice that the whirlpool that is created in the tray is 2-dimensional even though energy extends continuously in all three dimensions. Because it only needs two sites of motion to develop into a whirlpool it follows that they could develop in only 2-dimensions, i.e. as flat whirlpools confined to one plane.

If sites of motion were randomly spread throughout space then we might expect it to be possible for three or even more sites of motion to form 3-dimensional whirlpools. However, there is another well known universal law known as the “law of conservation of momentum”, and it is this law that ensures whirlpools usually develop in only 2-dimensions. In chapters 4 and 16 I will expand slightly upon how this law applies to whirlpool formation as the kinetic aspects of energy are dealt with in book 2 of FET. For the purpose of this book it can be assumed that not only are whirlpools largely 2-dimensional, it is possible for whirlpools to develop within whirlpools with many layers.

Whirlpools are usually associated with water. Anything that gets caught in the grip of a whirlpool is drawn towards its centre and then disappears down a hole. The objects therefore move inwards with the flow of water because the water is moving inwards. But whereas the water that is drawn inwards has to flow out again, say via a hole in the ground, the energy drawn in by its whirlpool remains there and simply becomes compressed into a higher density. In later chapters I will show that this spin and inward movement of energy can actually be seen operating at both the extremely small and extremely large scale.

Let me now summarise what I have assumed and deduced about energy when we consider it to be a real substance:

  • It is a continuous substance.
  • It extends throughout the whole of space.
  • It is the only substance to exist.
  • It is highly compressible.
  • The lowest energy density is the aethereal or continuum energy.
  • The highest known energy density is that of the nuclear particles.
  • Two moving regions of energy automatically start to rotate around each other.
  • Once a region of energy starts to rotate its spin rate increases and a whirlpool is created.

If this was the end of the story of the making of the universe according to FET then we would have a problem because if, as I have claimed, the universe has a finite amount of energy, then all of it should have been simply concentrated into rapidly spinning regions of high density by now. There must therefore be another event that has prevented this from occurring. So now we are ready to learn how the centrifugal and centripetal forces combine to create particles from continuous energy.

© Copyright 2008 C. J. Mash. | Site map