0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Please learn what you are talking about before making such grandiose and demonstrably wrong claims about the universe.Energy, while a tricky subject to grasp completely, is easily defined, predicted, measured and accounted for. There are many excellent resources that give definitions, explanations, derivations, theory and history of the subject. Use the internet for 60 seconds, and you can probably find 3 good leads.A few tips:1) energy could not possibly be a point, or anything pointlike.2) learn about positive and negative charge, you keep misusing them and confusing everyone including yourself3) Avoid big words until you've learned the little ones. Statements like this are meaningless: "The Quanta in space has no net charge and only when the Quanta flow becomes pressured by an opposing force, does a net charge occur , a bottlenecking of Quanta, that creates a temporal variable synchronisation of the constant which we know as spectral content."
In the unobservable of the Universe, remains unanswered questions of the things we can not visual observe, what is energy?
what is the nature of light?
what is the gravity mechanism?
What if we could define energy itself? This would lead to new understandings.
What is energy?
Energy is a specific unified point in space ...
, a point of existence where there is something of a positive nature rather than something of negative.
Could we perceive Quanta , was pure energy itself, how would we ever know?
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
Light can not be seen by humans it can be detected by a humans remote sensors that is interpreted by the brain as light.
Only light of a spectral frequency can you observe,
Humans can see the entire range of light waves. When we see something that's red such as the spot that a He-Ne laser produces on a white wall we're seeing pure red.
the box - When you have some serious questions to ask me other than silly word games let me know. What you posted in that last post isn't worth the effort to respond to them. Please get serious and stop with the word games. Start by reading a physics text. Not having time is not a valid excuse since you have time to post in forums which you could better use that time in a real study of physics, after which you'll be able to come back with serious questions and no more word games and playing with semantics. I'm real tired of it and won't ever comment on that kind of nonsense.
Energy or photons move at the speed of light, which is the same in all references, however photons also have wavelength and frequency which can be different in different references. We see red shifted energy from distance galaxies, which never stops moving at the speed of light. This tells me that energy has two legs or aspects, one leg is always connected to a speed of light reference, and the other leg is connected to inertial reference. Say you were to sit on a photon to view the universe from its speed of light reference. The inertial universe would appear to be a point in size according to special relativity. What that means is any wavelength less than infinite would be smaller than your point reference and therefore cannot be seen, since less than a point cannot exist by definition. The speed of light is color blind. If we could slow from the speed of light reference, the universe will appear to expand from the point-instant into finite size. Finite size perception allows more wavelengths to appear, albeit, very large wavelengths at first. As we slow more and more and the universe appears to be getting larger and larger, all wavelengths can be seen. If we keep one foot planted at C and allow the other leg to slow from C to a critical point, we get the bets of both world; energy.
The sky is blue because we are being pulled towards the sun, the compression we see of the light is a blue wave, the magnetic field , electrons, repelling the suns magnetic field , electrons. When the sun angles towards the earth at specific times we see a red sky in the morning or at night, this is because the light is being stretched and at this point the earth is trying to pull away from the sun, releasing the radiation pressure allowing the light flow to flow more freely.
Energy or photons move at the speed of light, ...
We see red shifted energy from distance galaxies, ...
Say you were to sit on a photon to view the universe from its speed of light reference.
That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 25/09/2015 15:56:19That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.Incorrect, the Quanta is energy, you see the quanta flow being stretched, the differential is observable to the constant of clarity. Quanta has no net charge when in constant flow. ''Energy is an abstract quantity which is merely a bookkeeping device''Energy is Quanta, Quanta is passed between all matter, force is a passing of quanta.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2015 16:18:01Quote from: PmbPhy on 25/09/2015 15:56:19That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.Incorrect, the Quanta is energy, you see the quanta flow being stretched, the differential is observable to the constant of clarity. Quanta has no net charge when in constant flow. ''Energy is an abstract quantity which is merely a bookkeeping device''Energy is Quanta, Quanta is passed between all matter, force is a passing of quanta.Wrong!! You're confusing the fact that the energy of subatomic particles are quantized in some instances with all energy being defined as "quanta" which is quite wrong. Light quanta, i.e. photons, have a quantized amount of energy. That energy has a specific amount which depends on the wavelength of the photon but can take on any value depending on what the wavelength is. If an electron is moving in an electric field where there is a relative minimum, i.e. the second derivative is positive in a specific region, then the energy of the electron is quantized when the energy is less than a particular value. E.g. the energy of an electron in an atom is quantized when the energy is negative and not quantized when its no longer in the potential, i.e. when its free.However, that said, energy itself is not "quanta." In quantum mechanics there are times when the energy comes in discrete amounts. In classical mechanics that's not true. The kinetic energy of an object is not quantized. Therefore you can't claim that energy "is" quanta. That's a very false assumption.I've already described energy to you. Obviously you didn't get it the first time around. You need to read this ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN again. This time read it more carefully.
You are not considering that protons absorb quanta ...
The electron is Quanta.
That's incorrect. A proton cannot absorb any energy whatsoever because that would require the proton's proper mass to increase and that's not possible.
Mr Box: please refrain from promulgating meaningless drivel in a science forum. Science is about what actually happens, described in words and formulae with precise meanings.
I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.
Quote from: Thebox on 26/09/2015 13:06:47I 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.
"=" It is constant.
This discussion reminds me of a practical experiment my physics teacher used to teach..Imagine a cheese sandwichnow imagine you eat the cheese sandwichNow 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!
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.
This is yet another result of you refusal to learn physics.
We chose to be amused rather than frustrated, although sometimes it is difficult.Given some consideration........................the moon is very different from our air!Please pardon my amusement. 
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, ...
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?
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.
OK.. in your defense, I have heard once, that there was a theory, that there was a negative gravitational force..
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 have a very twisted view of science.
atoms have a positive and a negative aurora
Mr BoxIf 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. Quoteatoms 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.
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?
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.