The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The nature of Energy.  (Read 4873 times)

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #75 on: 30/09/2015 15:47:04 »
Quote from: Thebox
Your a mathematician and you do not even understand what Maths is?
Silly vague comments like this are why I won't converse with you again.

Quote from: Thebox
Maths is a language no different from English, that describes processes and actions. Numbers do not exist , numbers never came into existence that would should suggest materialised.
Numbers are virtual representations.
Ignorant statement.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #76 on: 30/09/2015 15:49:55 »


Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?


A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #77 on: 30/09/2015 15:51:32 »



Ignorant statement.

You will not converge with me because you can not hold a thinking conversation Pete, there is nothing ignorant in my statement it is fact Pete, you seem to think numbers are real .

It is rather funny that if the earth in the origin was rotating at half the speed, 1hr would be 2 hours but still called one hour.

In self learning and discoursing the science, there was nobody telling me I had to accept this or fail my grades, no forced discipline Pete, that is why I can clearly see the clinical errors of science definition.


1. Change ''time'' dilation to timing dilation or gravitational timing dilation error fixed.
2. Change space time to virtual space time , error fixed
3. matter- xyz
4.space -virtual xyz
5.time-the timing and synchronisation of our every day existence relative to each other.
6.Photons-a dormant massless physical presence energy looking for an activator.

I could go on for a while.

« Last Edit: 30/09/2015 16:06:11 by Thebox »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #78 on: 30/09/2015 16:05:46 »


Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?


A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.

I do not think you understood the point of a circle. 3d is point to point and never a curve. In a 3d universe a pure circle is not possible. While points can become closer together by being smaller and smaller but never form a perfect circle. A pure circle cannot be expressed in math.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #79 on: 30/09/2015 16:08:17 »



A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.

I do not think you understood the point of a circle. 3d is point to point and never a curve. In a 3d universe a pure circle is not possible. While points can become closer together by being smaller and smaller but never form a perfect circle. A pure circle cannot be expressed in math.
[/quote]

a circle is 3d not 2d, consider 3 observers of the circle, one observer one face, one observer the opposite face, and one observer with a flat looking side view.

3 points of focus.



In total I have 25 dimensions of space.

8*3=24+1=25



ignore the keating part


« Last Edit: 30/09/2015 16:27:33 by Thebox »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #80 on: 30/09/2015 16:45:21 »
There is an abstract point about a 3d universe that has not registered. Only lines and points can be real. Curves and circles like computer representations can only make points smaller to create images. The line to create a circle is a gross interpretation of many points. One point side by side is still a straight line not a curve to infinity.

On the second issue of time verses timing What is your definition of time?

All frames measure the distance of a light second ~300,000 km's in length. Not all frames have the same tick rate. So not all frames measure the same distance for a km. It would appear to me that time dilation in the form of distance measured is a reality. Do you disagree?
« Last Edit: 30/09/2015 16:47:52 by GoC »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #81 on: 30/09/2015 16:58:07 »


On the second issue of time verses timing What is your definition of time?


My definition of time is of three subsets,
1. being an arbitrary creation by humans to synchronise our everyday existence by timing device.
2.a virtual representation of velocity and space
3.a state of decay and gravitational influence on matter(real time of existence)

I agree that 3 happens but does not have any effect on 1 and 2, 3 being dependent to the observer , while 1 and 2 is independent of 3 and universal for all.


''It would appear to me that time dilation in the form of distance measured is a reality.''

Time is a rate of decay of an observer dependent to that observer, distance is not even in the concept of real time, if you would like to discuss that 1.s is presently equal to approx 0.0288 mile , I will discuss that one. Science presently has timing rate and an increment of distance being the same thing.

24902/86400=0.28821759259mile= 9,192,631,770cycles =1.s and have modelled speed and the entire universe on this.

In simple terms mostly all of science is relative to the earth's spin rate,

added - just a thought before I forget it, it just popped into my head,reminder -  gravity curves time.




« Last Edit: 30/09/2015 18:37:39 by Thebox »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #82 on: 30/09/2015 19:05:03 »
Some can look at a point and understand the Universe. Others can look at the universe and not understand the point. You point me to the universe to understand a circle. I find no pure circles in the universe.

The most distance that can be covered in a second is ~300,000 km's. That is a constant in our Universe. We can only measure the speed of light in a vacuum in any frame to be ~300,000 km's/s. So when our clock tick rate changes so does our measurements for distance. So when a clock's tick rate is slower by 10% then the measured distance has to be 330,000 km's. That is a curve in two dimensions but a sphere (dilation) in three dimensions. This suggests dilated measurements for a slower tick rate. So the distance for the photon remains constant in space but the measurement becomes longer with dilation. Does the energy in a tick change or does the distance the electron period duration has to travel for the tick rate change?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #83 on: 30/09/2015 21:48:41 »
Some can look at a point and understand the Universe. Others can look at the universe and not understand the point. You point me to the universe to understand a circle. I find no pure circles in the universe.

The most distance that can be covered in a second is ~300,000 km's. That is a constant in our Universe. We can only measure the speed of light in a vacuum in any frame to be ~300,000 km's/s. So when our clock tick rate changes so does our measurements for distance. So when a clock's tick rate is slower by 10% then the measured distance has to be 330,000 km's. That is a curve in two dimensions but a sphere (dilation) in three dimensions. This suggests dilated measurements for a slower tick rate. So the distance for the photon remains constant in space but the measurement becomes longer with dilation. Does the energy in a tick change or does the distance the electron period duration has to travel for the tick rate change?


I think you may be referring to some sort of length contraction of space. I personally do not think science perceives the atomic clock and what it is doing correctly.
Decrease the force strength of a gravity field or increase the positive mass of matter, the rate of negatron ''extraction'' slows down, the object is in effect ''lighter'', to say the ground sucks the life out of you is not so far fetched.
The differential is a change of rate by a decreased force in gravity.

I am uncertain of your question, I have no idea of why distance is being related to a ''time'' dilation.  Distance radius yes , and extra distance on a curvature path yes.

What I do know is this

[a]24902
b]86400
[c]0.28821759259mile
[d] 9,192,631,770cycles
[e] 1.s

b] is derived by motion of [a], both are equal to [c] and [e]

[d] was derived from [e] and only while [d] is equal to [c],b],[a] is [e] equal to [d]


added - gravity is stretched by the angular of horizontal motion disrupting the vertical Negatron flow.
« Last Edit: 30/09/2015 22:32:25 by Thebox »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #84 on: 30/09/2015 22:31:52 »
There is a difference between an attraction force and tick rate of a clock. On the surface of the moon a clock experiences attraction to the center of the moon and feels what we describe as weight. In the center of the moon the clock would feel no weight but the clock would tick slower. So gravity itself (attraction to the center) is not what slows a clocks tick rate. Your basically weightless in the center of the moon.

In the center of the moon your clock tick rate is slower because of the more dilated space. A dilated measuring stick (lengthened) is needed to measure the speed of light the same as on the surface where the clock ticks faster.

I suspect length contraction in GR coincides with less mass not more mass. An increase in mass increases the dilation of space ad mass.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #85 on: 30/09/2015 22:35:30 »
On the surface of the moon a clock experiences attraction to the center of the moon and feels what we describe as weight. In the center of the moon the clock would feel no weight but the clock would tick slower.

You  just said it , consider your words, Newtons is the extraction, no weight no extraction, motion bends the pull angular.  The emission rate slows down because the force of extraction is lessened. It takes more time to extract something of curvature.

an aeroplane makes an arch like a rainbow.


https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/the-continuity-of-a-continuous-area-or-expanse-which-is-free-available-or-unoccupied-part-2/




added- and back to perfect circles, have a pole centralised with equal lengths of rope hanging from the top. rotate the pole at high speed so the ropes become propeller like, look from above I think you will see a perfect circle.

« Last Edit: 01/10/2015 03:56:45 by Thebox »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #86 on: 01/10/2015 04:39:45 »
Ok
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #87 on: 01/10/2015 16:28:28 »
Ok, moving on, back to the nature of energy,

 energy is a thing that exists in space but is not seen....

So we have light seen as invisible in space f=0
cbmr  that is seen as invisible in space, f=0
energy that is seen as invisible in space J=0
gravity that is invisible in space, F=0

∑(space)=0

Space seemingly has a continuity when comparing to matter and the values of matter, matter is much more of a variate where energy is concerned.

I do not think energy is abstract, I think energy is ''alive'' and ''dead'' at the same time.

E=-orē

-orē=E

activate + -orē




« Last Edit: 02/10/2015 01:13:01 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #87 on: 01/10/2015 16:28:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums