[charlatan]

It is well understood that the vacuum of space is not nothing. The string theories themselves are predicated on the vacuum being composed of quanta that are modelled with strings (DeSitter/Calabi-Yau spaces). To say that it is ignores not only some of the most prominent physicists about but also ignores the empirical evidence from accelerators upon which the string theories are based

If there is no fabric of space(time) , how is gravity able to change over distance from one point to another? Space is something and structure must be present at the quantum level through which gravitational force is relayed - at the speed of light.

[seeker3 (OP)]

Word puzzle?

What is the content of fabric of space?

[seeker3 (OP)]

Quantum anything is mislead.

What is quantum? The godfather of quanta, nobel winner of photoelectric effect theory said he knows not what are light quanta, everyone thinks he knows it is mistake.

So, what is quanta?

Faynman said scientists don't know what is energy, you know better?

[Kryptid]

Do you think that "I don't know what it is" and "It doesn't exist" are synonymous statements?

[syhprum]

Thebox

         "a body in freefall towards another body has a speed which is ~9.81m/s2 "

The acceleration that you quote only takes place over a very limited distance compared to the radius of the Earth, to calculate the acceleration of a body falling from a greater distance you have to take account of the fact that the gravitational attraction falls off as the square of the distance.
otherwise you would soon have bodies falling at light speed and acquiring infinite mass according to SR   

[seeker3 (OP)]

Energy coexists with matter, energy is the motive force carried with matter.

Energy is not photon particle, not imaginary quanta blobs.

Einstein and Feynman thought so.

All word puzzles less than fact and logic.

All theories must have precise mechanism, without it, just word salad, monkey theory.

[Kryptid]

Do you think that "I don't know what it is" and "It doesn't exist" are synonymous statements?

[charlatan]

Quantum is a smallest single piece of whatever - a quantum of solace for instance. Its a word not a concept. The fabric of space can be modelled with one dimensional 'matter' strings - Dirac called it a 'sea of electrons'. I am not aware of a single theory that considers space as nothing.
The best way I have found to picture energy is as volume. Chemically, all exothermic reactions result in lower volume states - as can be determined through the ideal gas equation. We could picture the volume given to the Universe in the inflationary epoch (Guth) as energy and its components as 'energised' with volume. Thereafter, for all fixed matter systems, reductions in volume lead to increases in density - the initial conditions of the Universe requires an 'infinitely' dense matter particle - a singularity - like the much smaller supernova and SMBH singularities. Everything can be seen as getting smaller and returning to its initial volume state. Energy may not be a 'thing' but a glimpse of the movement of volume as it leaves the system emitting it. We can then consider a volume interacting with matter as a transfer of energy. Heat something up and it expands, cool it and it contracts. I have never found an application of 'volume as energy' to produce an outcome that was inconsistent with the event it is modelling. Try it.

[seeker3 (OP)]

Thermal energy is vibrating electrostatic force matter carried. Kinetic energy is motive force moving matter carried.

All energy came from atom formation. Opposite charges particles attract each other to form atom, portaincial energy becomes atom's thermal energy.

There is nothing quanta, no energy pocket, energy blob, energy particle.

Energy has no charge, no mass, no volume, no speed.

[seeker3 (OP)]

Energy must coexist with matter.

Energy is not matter.

E=MC^2 is mistaken.

[seeker3 (OP)]

If E=MC^2 is correct.

Take 1 kg any kind of matter, get top scientists, show us how to produce 1 kg C^2 energy?

[The Spoon]

Energy must coexist with matter.

Energy is not matter.

E=MC^2 is mistaken.

The onus is on you to show evidence that this is the case. All you have done is posted page after page of semi-literate nonsense.

[seeker3 (OP)]

Scientists think a matter carries more mass if it is hotter, because energy equals to mass.

Fact is, hotter atoms don't weight more, hotter atoms vibrate faster.

[The Spoon]

Scientists think a matter carries more mass if it is hotter, because energy equals to mass.

Fact is, hotter atoms don't weight more, hotter atoms vibrate faster.

Evidence or STFU

[seeker3 (OP)]

If E=MC^2 is fact, why we still using oil and coal?

We should be able to turn any matter into energy.

Why fusion still a dream after 80 years and trillion $? Even fusion succeed, it only convert 1% mass into energy. How can E=MC^2 is correct?

[charlatan]

If you have all the answers, where are your workings, where is your logic, where is your website with your theory. Instead of being an evangelist for a truth only you believe, make your complete truth known so that we can make a conclusive decision about it. But you can't do that. You have fragments of ideas that have no foundation. You are unashamedly spurious in what is understood in physics. You are not prepared to listen, only rant. I am a newbie to NS but not to physics and know that you would not get away with this on any other forum. The answer to your original post is that, the speed of light is a property of the structure of spacetime. Anything that moves through it is subject to the limitations of the structure - its ability to react to, and therefore communicate 'information' . Light and gravity are both subject to it. Its not difficult to understand.
  Sad that no meaningful discussion can take place with you. SYLA.

[Kryptid]

If E=MC^2 is fact, why we still using oil and coal?

Because 100% conversion of mass to energy requires very special circumstances (such as matter-antimatter annihilation). There is nowhere near enough antimatter on Earth for us to use it for power generation.

E=mc² has been experimentally tested and found to be correct: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2

[seeker3 (OP)]

What is the speed of gravity?

The speed of gravity is light speed.

Why?

Because all scientists say so. Textbooks say so. Everyone think so. Therefore gravity speed is 3 x 10^8 m/s.

Common mistake due to bad education.

The fact is gravity has no speed, gravity does not propagate from Sun to earth, gravity is constantly attracting the Sun and earth. Therefore gravity has no speed, it is instantaneous.

What is the speed of mass? What is the speed of charge? What is the speed of temperature?

Temperature, mass and charge just like gravity, coexisting with matter, inherited, indestructible and immortal. All instantaneous, have no speed.

[Bored chemist]

Even fusion succeed, it only convert 1% mass into energy. How can E=MC^2 is correct?

If that was true (it's not) then the answer would be because only 1% of  the mass was destroyed so only 1% of the mas gets multiplied by C^2

If E=MC^2 is fact, why we still using oil and coal?

Some of us are using nuclear power- energy released by the destruction of mass.

Do you have some laughable explanation of how nuclear  fission power works?