D---I'm a mature-age Phd student-shitekicker, and happened to be on a roll over the weekend.

J---Not quite sure how to interpret that.

Probably the pros like RL and others are simply too busy or tired to be able to devote time to this sort of stuff. The same probably applies to those with family responsibilities.

RL's communication abilities are FAR below yours, his slanderous remarks have a very negative effect on communication.

From your previous post:

In other words the word energy when used by itself has the meaning of the word kinetic integrated with it.
I'd be careful here; energy as a term can refer to thermal energy as well, for instance. On the other hand thermal energy does include the concept of kinetic energy of individual particles. The hotter the fluid or gas, the faster these particles move, and hence the greater their kinetic energy.

Yes, mechanical, thermal, electronic, electromagnetic, and all other forms of energies have a hidden meaning of motion (the word 'kinetic' derived from Greek language.) associated with them.

kinetic energy.... noun
The energy possessed by a body because of its motion, equal to one half the mass of the body times the square of its speed.

That is the macroscopic calculation.

Energy is 'kinetic' (moving). 'Force' is potential (latent).

Don't forget the idea of EQUILIBRIUM, in which a object could be stationary because all the various forces acting on it are perfectly balanced in size and in direction. This is a common concept used all the time in science and engineering.

Yes. These also are usually macroscopic effects or calculations, although the concepts can be transferred into the sub-microscopic or nuclear, electronic level.
But that fact does not change the need to consider the effects of motion and the 'force' that can initiate, or allow such motion to exist, into two separate concepts.
Kinetic theory:

A theory concerning the thermodynamic behavior of matter, especially the relationships among pressure, volume, and temperature in gases. It is based on the dependence of temperature on the kinetic energy of the rapidly moving particles of a substance. According to the theory, energy and momentum are conserved in all collisions between particles, and the average behavior of the particles can be deduced by statistical analysis.

J---The physics word force as described by my encyclopedia is a: "vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application."
For such a force to initiate the falling of a rock down, after I have thrown it up, the force would need to be exerted from the top.
D---Not necessarily: gravity is exerted from below, causing the rock to fall. You exerted the upwards force in the first place - and the rock would keep moving in a straight line with the same velocity if not for the downwards gravitational force. Gravity causes the upwards-moving rock to slow down to an eventual stop, and then pulls it increasingly faster back down to the ground. .

Yes. The rock has kinetic energy while it is moving, and as you said, it would keep moving in a straight line if there was no other force and I would add energy affecting it.
The question then is: Is the force different from energy? I say that it is.

In both ideas the unwanted word force creeps into the equation.
Well in this context, force is not an unwanted word, it's actually very useful in describing the situation. Forces are very useful descriptors in everyday Newtonian mechanics. It's just when we get to deeper and greater explanations, that we try and 'write them out of the picture' in favor of more basic quantities like energy and the geometry of space.

I am of the opinion that the meaning of the word force is as basic a concept as that of the word energy, and therefore its use, should be extended down to the fundamental level.

J---I do not know if Mr. Bernoulli intended his formulas to be used for the explanation of the fundamentals of kinetic and potential (latent) energies. However, the formulas that he came up with are very good explanation of the behavior of mass in motion.
D---That's a fair question; the answer is no. Bernoulli's theorem deals only with the BULK properties of fluids and gasses, not with their individual molecular components. It is extremely useful in all fields of aeronautical and naval engineering for instance. It says nothing about the fundamentals of space and time however, so you'd be wrong to extrapolate that into those areas IMO. .

If we consider all that exists in the universe (mass and photons) as a fluid of 'electromagnetic energy' then the properties of that energy can be considered in BULK calculation's such as Bernoulli's.

J---His principle states that the total energy in a steadily flowing fluid system is a constant along the flow path. An increase in the fluid's speed must therefore be matched by a decrease in its pressure. There is a "flow" of photons in space, we already know that the speed of this flow is constant, if we consider space as the fluid that we are examining, then the speed of light becomes the constant that we can plug into Bernoulli's equations and by that method examine fields such as gravity, magnetism and electricity.

D---Yes 'photonic flux' is indeed an accepted concept - I don't know much about it though. Thing is, by considering SPACE as the fluid to be examined, you've got it upside-down. A 'flow of photons' implies that it's the PHOTONS, or the LIGHT ITSELF, which you should regard as the 'fluid' in question..

Yes you are right, but if we take this as a truth then we can not say that the space is expanding or contracting, but rather we must say that the mass distribution or density is changing. Then we must define the direction of that change.

D---And keep in mind also, that Bernoulli can't be simply transplanted into this context - he knew nothing about electromagnetism or about quantum mechanics, which are the foundations of our knowledge of light. These were developments which came later in the 19th century and early in the 20th.

I think that he figured out the formulas using observations of experiments, the observed phenomenon is based on the underlying molecular and electromagnetic phenomenon. The resulting formulas then reflect the internal functioning of the phenomenon and are convertible to the use of the internal functions.

D---(BTW, Space DOES interact with light, insofar as the speed of light was shown by Maxwell (in the late 19th century) to depend on the permittivity and the permeability of pure vacuum (called 'free space'). These things describe how easily (or otherwise) a vacuum 'allows' the passage of an electric field (permittivity), and how 'well' it gets magnetized in response to an existing magnetic field. Pretty abstract concepts to be sure, but they apply to any materials at all (not just 'free space') and so are standard usage in physics, engineering and geology.

Yes the word space in its fundamental meaning is a cubic area that has nothing in it. No energy of any kind. But that does not exclude the concept of force, or potential for kinetic energy.

The question also rises as to what causes the permittivity and the permeability of 'free space'.
I have been reading The Treatise On Electricity And Magnetism by James Clerk Maxwell, it was first printed in 1954 and is an unabridged and unaltered republication of the third edition of 1891.

So far I have not found the words "permittivity" or "permeability" in that book, they could be implied in the mathematics, but without having the complete convention available for the meaning of some of the symbols, it becomes very difficult to decipher the context.

The main thing to extract from this last paragraph is that the permittivity and permeability of free space are both constants - unchangeable numbers ; and that the speed of light depends ONLY on these two quantities. This is one pointer to the question of why lightspeed is an absolute constant. )

But then the permittivity and/or permeability changes with the density of the medium, such as glass or water or the photon concentration of space it self.

This is my (partial) interpretation (or language) concerning the words energy and force.

Johannes