# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: The nature of Energy.  (Read 4880 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #25 on: 26/09/2015 13:06:47 »
I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #26 on: 26/09/2015 13:30:25 »
I will try to explain something that is probably beyond imagination, but here goes,

Imagine an infinite void , our first thought is empty space and nothing exists, this thought is not quite valid, imagine the infinite void space is negative, and all this negative holds together without physical body.
Now imagine a singular point in the center of an infinite volume, a single point where all negative meets, at this point the negative makes a positive, the universe is born.

Sort of negative space collapsing into itself. Now  if you consider quanta to be positive and also without physical body, then the negative nothing becomes possible because we have a positive nothing. If something was only made of protons, the something would also want to implode, there would be no equal and opposing force.

The Sun maintains its shape because it has equal negative and positive, where as the earth is not equal and positive because the core is equal positive and negative  but the ground is more negative, air becomes polarised, ice is attracted to air that is why it floats.

Imagine negative and positive to be a thing rather than an abstract, then imagine the air, imagine the air when it falls to be a more negative, imagine the air when it rises to be more a positive, imagine this compared to the cores positive output.

-³=+

x=1 quark

x³=quantum implode.

atoms-

« Last Edit: 26/09/2015 14:42:29 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #27 on: 26/09/2015 15:15:12 »
I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.

And there you would be wrong. Energy is a conserved parameter, not an entity.

Imagine anything you like, but don't confuse imagination with science. Negative and positive are adjectives, not nouns. People who confuse adjectives with nouns end up with all sorts of problems, including religion.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #28 on: 26/09/2015 18:13:37 »
I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.

And there you would be wrong. Energy is a conserved parameter, not an entity.

Imagine anything you like, but don't confuse imagination with science. Negative and positive are adjectives, not nouns. People who confuse adjectives with nouns end up with all sorts of problems, including religion.

Something that absorbs and emits at the same rate will remain at a constant quantity overall.  Without energy matter could not exist, energy certainly exists with out process.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 352
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #29 on: 27/09/2015 14:30:14 »
"=" It is constant.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #30 on: 27/09/2015 16:45:46 »
"=" It is constant.

also immortal.

#### ProjectSailor

• Full Member
• Posts: 83
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #31 on: 28/09/2015 16:09:52 »
This discussion reminds me of a practical experiment my physics teacher used to teach..

Imagine a cheese sandwich
now imagine you eat the cheese sandwich
Now are you hungry? or do you need to imagine another cheese sandwich.

Thinking you can assign a charge or energy where you have none is like eating an imaginary sandwich, you can do it all you like but it wont get you anywhere other than more hungry.

I particularly like the 'ice is attracted to air that is why it floats'... this will keep me laughing for weeks..

But I hope you remain positive with your theories and avoid all those negative comments.. but they do seem to attract each other!

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #32 on: 29/09/2015 02:45:31 »
This discussion reminds me of a practical experiment my physics teacher used to teach..

Imagine a cheese sandwich
now imagine you eat the cheese sandwich
Now are you hungry? or do you need to imagine another cheese sandwich.

Thinking you can assign a charge or energy where you have none is like eating an imaginary sandwich, you can do it all you like but it wont get you anywhere other than more hungry.

I particularly like the 'ice is attracted to air that is why it floats'... this will keep me laughing for weeks..

But I hope you remain positive with your theories and avoid all those negative comments.. but they do seem to attract each other!

I am glad you are amused but if you considered it , it is not much different to the moon creating a bulge of the oceans, the ocean is attracted to the moon so why can't the ice be attracted to air when air has mass no dissimilar to that of the moon?

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1879
• Thanked: 145 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #33 on: 29/09/2015 03:07:35 »
We chose to be amused rather than frustrated, although sometimes it is difficult.

Given some consideration........................the moon is very different from our air!

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2773
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #34 on: 29/09/2015 03:28:52 »
Quote from: Thebox
A proton is not exclusive it absorbs emr like everything else, that is why things increase in temperature, protons have a capacitance, and once full they release the charge in the form of emr.
You are 100% wrong. This is yet another result of you refusal to learn physics. Why not do everyone in all forums you go to a favor and read this book: http://bookos-z1.org/s/?q=energy+the+subtle+concept&t=0

You'll then have a solid idea of what energy is. Right now you're totally clueless. Please stop acting like you know what you're talking about. It's offensive to the senses.

Protons are elementary particle made of quarks. A proton cannot absorb or emit energy. The reason why things such as solids, liquids an gases increase in temperature when they absorb heat is that the kinetic energy of the particles which make up the matter increases. If it was merely a change in internal energy then that wouldn't cause the temperature to increase. Protons do NOT have capacitance.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 03:45:43 by chiralSPO »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #35 on: 29/09/2015 05:24:00 »

This is yet another result of you refusal to learn physics.

Incorrect , this is another result of me not accepting the physics I am learning. You say a Proton does not absorb energy, poppy cock, you have no evidence that a proton does not absorb and emit energy,
It is not my fault that science fails to convince me by poor definition and explanation.

Energy is a set that contains subsets, energy comes in different forms, elastic energy , kinetic energy , blah blah, this is what you want me to mimic, I am not a robot and have a mind of my own thank you.
Energy may or may not have sub sets, but in the end it comes down to one thing. A single entity that is energy.
You talk about the kinetic excitement of atoms, this generates energy. What polarity is the kinetic excitement energy output?

+++++++++++

there is nothing negative about energy.

E=E

Energy is massless particles, a pure ''spirit '' without physical body that lays dormant with no net charge unless being opposed or applied.    And science does not exactly split an atom does it to get energy.

« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 05:40:28 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #36 on: 29/09/2015 05:24:53 »
We chose to be amused rather than frustrated, although sometimes it is difficult.

Given some consideration........................the moon is very different from our air!

You can be amused , no worries, I think you miss the point air and the moon is made of atoms.

I may just give up in trying, the evidence you already have shows most of what I say to be true about most of what I say.

Im going bed I will leave you with this note,

The aether of space you are looking for is of a  magnetic field and not like a medium. Your plasma physics and magnetic bottling show you this, empty vacuum, magnetic field ''medium'' that confines the plasma but allows light to pass through. An ''aether'' energy field needs no physical body for the propagation of light.

« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 05:53:29 by Thebox »

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2773
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #37 on: 29/09/2015 05:57:14 »
Quote from: Thebox
Incorrect , this is another result of me not accepting the physics I am learning.
Wrong. You're not accepting it because you don't understand it at all. Every single one of your posts proves that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. There's no evidence at all that you know the subject or ever learned anything about it. You erroneous assertions about protons is proof of that.

However I've had a change of mind regarding protons. Protons are made of quarks which can emit and absorb gluons which carry energy and momentum.

However I checked with a particle physicist I know who informed me that the proton is the lowest energy state of 2 u's and a d quark.  They could absorb energy and go into an excited state.  But in particle physics that's just a new particle, its no longer a proton.

Quote from: Thebox
You say a Proton does not absorb energy, poppy cock, you have no evidence that a proton does not absorb and emit energy, ...
You're quite wrong. There is ample evidence that it doesn't. Again, you just don't know it so you don't think it exists. Merely go to the CERN website or the FERMI lab website and ask one of the particle physicists there and they'll explain to you in detail why you're wrong.

But you're not basing your assertions on any kind of logic but merely claiming that because of your (quite erroneous) belief that its not been proven that they can't absorb energy then the opposite has to be true. That's a logical fallacy.

You've once again reverted to being very arrogant and think you know everything so I see no reason to try to reason with you since you're far too unreasonable.

Goodbye. This is my last post to you since I will NEVER try to explain physics to you again. You just don't have the mind for it and are way too arrogant to learn it.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 09:52:55 by PmbPhy »

#### ProjectSailor

• Full Member
• Posts: 83
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #38 on: 29/09/2015 11:41:02 »

I am glad you are amused but if you considered it , it is not much different to the moon creating a bulge of the oceans, the ocean is attracted to the moon so why can't the ice be attracted to air when air has mass no dissimilar to that of the moon?

I do consider it, there is little doubt by any theory, law or hypothesis that mass does have an attractive force on other masses through gravtiational attraction.. However, 14.7 pounds of air per square inch does not even slightly approach the massive 74 million million million tonnes worth of rock orbiting the earth.

This may help to why ice floats though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

OK.. in your defense, I have heard once, that there was a theory, that there was a negative gravitational force.. I heard it when there was a theory about strong gravitational forces and weak gravitational forces.. I am unaware if this is current belief or not.. and I think distance had something to do with it.. maybe do a bit of swatting up on these things to help you with your theory and separate understood physics from the theoretical physics..

I have spent far too long floating about on the water in massive tin cans to know that floating has nothing to do with how much air or moon there is above me..

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #39 on: 29/09/2015 13:11:08 »

Wrong. You're not accepting it because you don't understand it at all. Every single one of your posts proves that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. There's no evidence at all that you know the subject or ever learned anything about it. You erroneous assertions about protons is proof of that.

I am impressed Pete really, how you assert all the time about people , and not just on this forum. You presume a lot, tell people they are practically stupid and insist they have not learnt , do you think you can see people beyond the internet Pete, some sort of physic power that allows you to assume all these things about a person?

I honestly bang my head against a wall, you are in a new theories section preaching old theories back to me that everyone knows because it is on wiki.  In a new theory section you should not be trying to teach anyone anything, it is their theory not yours, so why do you do it?

You are the one playing make believe you are not even a scientist and have a science forum of your own where you have the power to claim you are this science god who knows everything. so what if the ice part is far fetched the rest of my idea is good logic.

« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 13:13:54 by Thebox »

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2773
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #40 on: 29/09/2015 13:12:38 »
Quote from: ProjectSailor
OK.. in your defense, I have heard once, that there was a theory, that there was a negative gravitational force..
That can happen using general relativity. There's something in cosmology referred to as a vacuum domain wall. It has a negative effective active gravitational mass density. Dark energy also behaves as if there is an negative effective active gravitational mass density.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2773
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #41 on: 29/09/2015 13:26:19 »
Quote from: Thebox
I am impressed Pete really, how you assert all the time about people , and not just on this forum. You presume a lot, tell people they are practically stupid and insist they have not learnt , do you think you can see people beyond the internet Pete, some sort of physic power that allows you to assume all these things about a person?
You are a liar. I don't call people stupid or make any comments about people's IQ except for david waite. But he's been stalking me for over 15 years now. He's an evil little shiit.

Quote from: Thebox
I honestly bang my head against a wall, you are in a new theories section preaching old theories back to me that everyone knows because it is on wiki.
You have a very twisted view of science. The theories you mention are not old theories. They're current theories. I talk about them because they are correct. There is no evidence which even hints otherwise. I come here because the other forums are dead and to correct flawed reasoning when I see it. I recently realized that you're not interested in learning the truth. You're only interested in pushing all the nonsense you dream up and I'm not interested in your nonsense.

Quote from: Thebox
In a new theory section you should not be trying to teach anyone anything, it is their theory not yours, so why do you do it?
Why do you think people post in this forum? Do you think they all do it so everybody will pat them on the back and say "Gee. What a nifty idea." and then make sure that you don't post any flaws in their reasoning? No. Only you behave like that. That's why I will never try to help you ever again.

And you're quite wrong. I never call people stupid. You're confusing being stupid with being ignorant. They're quite different. You're ignorant. I have no idea what your IQ is and I'm not interested in finding out since its of no use to anybody. We try to help people here get rid of their ignorance. In your case you thought that you could actually redefine what energy is not knowing that definitions are not up for change. If you try to do it your wasting everybody's time. You should give what you have in mind another name.

If you took that time to learn physics then things might be a great deal different. But your claims about me are all nonsense. You're exaggerating about me to and I don't appreciate that. It's a terrible thing to do with someone. E.g. you talk about all the forums I go to and you've only seen me discuss physics in two of them, this one and physforum. The people at physforum are extremely rude. They jump at any chance they can get to insult people.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #42 on: 29/09/2015 13:52:35 »

You have a very twisted view of science.

No I do not, I use the appropriate forum section , present facts belong in the main section of the forum, this section is for discussing new ideas, the new idea does not really get discussed, this can be said for all forums. Instantly replies ''you are wrong'' because the good book says this , this is not discussion and comes across as preaching.
You say theory is correct, that is incorrect theory is theory and not fact.

I learnt science Pete, and this is what science has told me, I am not making things up, I am going off your science .

Science logic is flawed in definition, I observe this.

Science says that all things are made of atoms, try to apply the use of this and science says you are wrong. Hilarious.

Tell me this Pete, according to science everything of matter is made of atoms, atoms have a positive and a negative aurora , we know negative is attracted to positive, we know matter contains nothing else, so we know gravity is this and there is nothing else in matter that is capable of causing gravity other than electrostatic forces and opposite polarities attract.
There is no weakness in that logic Pete.

Science said to me, matter is made of atoms, atoms are made up of protons and electrons, (and neutrons), electrons are connected to a proton by an electrostatic coupling.
Electrons are attracted to protons.

So they also in essence said the earth's protons are attracted to the suns electrons and vice versus. Negative and positive mass.

« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 14:26:41 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4728
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #43 on: 29/09/2015 14:47:13 »
Mr Box

If you want to communicate with the natives, it's a good idea to learn their language. This is particularly the case in science where every word has a precise meaning, and every statement can be challenged by experiment.

Mass is not charge. Charge is not mass. Mass has no polarity.

Quote
atoms have a positive and a negative aurora
Think what you like. Some people believe in all sorts of nonsense - churches of all denominations are full of them. But don't kid yourself it has anything to do with science.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 352
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #44 on: 29/09/2015 15:00:17 »
[img=PmbPhy]http://Wrong. You're not accepting it because you don't understand it at all. Every single one of your posts proves that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. There's no evidence at all that you know the subject or ever learned anything about it. You erroneous assertions about protons is proof of that.[/img]

Photons?

Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest. While the relationship to mass might be a different perspective neither can physically describe the gluon. So can we dispense with the "wrong " when we do not really know the right?

[img=PmbPhy]http://However I've had a change of mind regarding protons. Protons are made of quarks which can emit and absorb gluons which carry energy and momentum.[/img]

Lets physically describe the gluon.  Any takers?

[img=PmbPhy]http://However I checked with a particle physicist I know who informed me that the proton is the lowest energy state of 2 u's and a d quark.  They could absorb energy and go into an excited state.  But in particle physics that's just a new particle, its no longer a proton.[/img]

No longer a proton? Leaves allot of room for the imagination.

[img=PmbPhy]http://You're quite wrong. There is ample evidence that it doesn't. Again, you just don't know it so you don't think it exists. Merely go to the CERN website or the FERMI lab website and ask one of the particle physicists there and they'll explain to you in detail why you're wrong.[/img]

Not a proton. Any takers? The claim that one is wrong suggests they know the physical makeup mechanically of the photon and the not a photon. Please temper your use of wrong or describe the gluon physical cause of transfer mechanism.

[img=PmbPhy]http://But you're not basing your assertions on any kind of logic but merely claiming that because of your (quite erroneous) belief that its not been proven that they can't absorb energy then the opposite has to be true. That's a logical fallacy.[/img]

What is different from a gluon that an aether, dark mass, dark energy or spacetime as a different word can not attribute unknown forces?

[img=PmbPhy]http://You've once again reverted to being very arrogant and think you know everything so I see no reason to try to reason with you since you're far too unreasonable.[/img]

I do not totally agree with him either but when does having a different perspective cause arrogance? Jealous protection of your understanding might be considered arrogance. This is new theories and ideas create new theories. Correct or incorrect ideas make us think and there is no better job for science than to make one think.

[img=PmbPhy]http://Goodbye. This is my last post to you since I will NEVER try to explain physics to you again. You just don't have the mind for it and are way too arrogant to learn it.[/img]

Main stream echo?

Not all new theories can remain in the box of terms used or their meaning.

Modified
« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 15:08:37 by GoC »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #45 on: 29/09/2015 15:01:30 »
Mr Box

If you want to communicate with the natives, it's a good idea to learn their language. This is particularly the case in science where every word has a precise meaning, and every statement can be challenged by experiment.

Mass is not charge. Charge is not mass. Mass has no polarity.

Quote
atoms have a positive and a negative aurora
Think what you like. Some people believe in all sorts of nonsense - churches of all denominations are full of them. But don't kid yourself it has anything to do with science.

I will agree with you if you can tell me what mass is?

If you can not tell me what mass is ,that is similar to saying there is a god in my opinion.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #46 on: 29/09/2015 15:05:48 »

Photons?

Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest. While the relationship to mass might be a different perspective neither can physically describe the gluon. So can we dispense with the "wrong " when we do not really know the right?

Lets physically describe the gluon.  Any takers?

No longer a proton? Leaves allot of room for the imagination.

Not a proton. Any takers? The claim that one is wrong suggests they know the physical makeup mechanically of the photon and the not a photon. Please temper your use of wrong or describe the gluon physical cause of transfer mechanism.

What is different from a gluon that an aether, dark mass, dark energy or spacetime as a different word can not attribute unknown forces?

I do not totally agree with him either but when does having a different perspective cause arrogance? Jealous protection of your understanding might be considered arrogance. This is new theories and ideas create new theories. Correct or incorrect ideas make us think and there is no better job for science than to make one think.

Main stream echo?

well said, I will have to look up a gluon , I have not come across that term before.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #47 on: 29/09/2015 15:29:21 »
''Gluons /ˈɡluːɒnz/ are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.''

What exactly is an exchange particle?  is a gluon even a particle?
why does science de-construct things down to a near zero point?

(a)/2^?   How far do you go, is it even negligible?

We can hardly observe atoms, surely point zero should start at atoms, Protons and Electrons, and everything else is negligible?

« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 15:36:49 by Thebox »

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 352
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #48 on: 29/09/2015 15:39:38 »
It was a name waiting to be observed for holding mass together by some process. While collision energies have increased to a point where one of the products of a collision claims the gluon particle found at that energy. like blowing a car up and saying there goes the ignition key. And the crowd repeats the ignition key.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #49 on: 29/09/2015 15:51:37 »
It was a name waiting to be observed for holding mass together by some process. While collision energies have increased to a point where one of the products of a collision claims the gluon particle found at that energy. like blowing a car up and saying there goes the ignition key. And the crowd repeats the ignition key.

Arrghh I see, I did have a joke with my friend as well about sticking some glue on him, and calling that a gluon him, I did realise what a gluon was but had a dull moment.

So a Gluon is a theoretical ''particle'' that glues all matter together?

Why particle and not an energy field?

Why not a negative energy wave which explains why science can not detect it because it is a ''flat line''?

I have an object in my hand now, there is a force between the object and the ground , the force is the negative of the object being attracted to the greater positive of the ground , the force is a linearity, not centripetal, the negative wave has no net charge so is undetectable. why not?  why is this not plausible?

Consider a theoretical object (a) with a mono-pole emitting force in a vacuum, then consider several other  objects (b) with a dipole field that were of equal quantities of + and - that were subjective to variance by thermodynamics process and electrodynamic process.
Consider that (b) can never come into contact with (a) has long as (b) remains a variant of equal proportion of - and + to oppose (a) by + being the same pole as (a).

« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 16:10:06 by Thebox »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #49 on: 29/09/2015 15:51:37 »