The nature of Energy.

  • 87 Replies
  • 4992 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
The nature of Energy.
« on: 22/09/2015 17:13:29 »
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?

Questions with no definite answer, presumptions and theory trying to explain the unobserved.

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 this singular point is of a single entity no dissimilar to Quanta.   Could we perceive Quanta , was pure energy  itself, how would we ever know?

All matter in the Universe is submerged in Quanta, stars releasing Quanta in an isotropic ''stream'', no spacing between Quanta creating an illusion of a wave and a speed, where as the speed is the rate of output of a star forcing the constant flow.

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.

All mass being submerged in the constant flow creating observer effect of the constant.


Quanta passes through air, air does not obstruct the Quanta allowing the flow rate to remain constant. Quanta does not reveal frequency whilst passing through air. Quanta is equal to sight and observably clear whilst in space at its constant flow.


If a single Quanta becomes separated from the Quanta flow, it will become at rest where eventually the dormant charge will dissipate leaving behind rest mass . 


The Quanta flow defends all mass, pushing back the negativeness of dark space beyond our visual boundaries of observation.















 
« Last Edit: 22/09/2015 17:33:28 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1917
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #1 on: 22/09/2015 18:24:18 »
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 yourself
3) 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."

*

Offline scotty stull

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 27
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #2 on: 22/09/2015 19:41:42 »
Never assume that some one doesn't know what energy is, for matter is in the constant act of expanding and contracting or contracting and expanding, there is no exception to this rule. We see energy as both motion and mass,  there is a great illusion here because mentally we can not separate mass from motion. Motion can not exist but it does exist!

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #3 on: 22/09/2015 20:14:09 »
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 yourself
3) 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."

I understand every big word I used lol, you mistake what i mean to point like, consider a particle smaller than a particle occupying a specific point of space. Without energy there can be no positive action only negative action.


These point ''particles'' denote all that is energy, exchanging quanta from one object to the next.


*

Offline scotty stull

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 27
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #4 on: 23/09/2015 19:37:57 »
When you talk about a point in space as being of a "positive nature" rather than something of a "negative", this would say to me that this is potential energy. If this point in space is kinetic energy ( motion or in the act ) then you would have both positive and negative force at the same time. This is important because when we perceive matter in it's self as not being in the constant act of motion, we will say it's potential energy, everything is always in the constant act of moving, the positive nature of a point in space you refer to is the organizing and collecting mass at this point in space, it's the smaller mass creating a larger mass.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #5 on: 24/09/2015 01:41:19 »
Any individual particle in rotation creates an individual wormhole of way of it's own output of electro-magnetic wave.


creating centripetal force denoted by its own efficiency.






« Last Edit: 24/09/2015 01:43:11 by Thebox »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #6 on: 24/09/2015 05:53:43 »
Quote from: Thebox
In the unobservable of the Universe, remains unanswered questions of the things we can not visual observe, what is energy?
I already addressed that question: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm
The term energy cannot be defined.  Didn't you read that page?

Quote from: Thebox
what is the nature of light?
You're not being very clear about what you want to know when you ask vague questions like that. I'm going to assume that by that question you want to know all the properties of light. If so then see: http://physics.info/light/ - The Nature of Light.

Quote from: Thebox
what is the gravity mechanism?
You've been told on multiple occasions that the mechanism of gravity is unknown as of yet.

Quote from: Thebox
What if we could define energy itself? This would lead to new understandings.
No it wouldn't. We know everything there is to know about energy. The reason that there's no definition is because its a basic property and as such there is nothing to define it in terms of.

Quote from: Thebox
What is energy?
You're repeating yourself, again!

Quote from: Thebox
Energy is a specific unified point in space ...
No it isn't. That's the worst way to even approach a definition for energy because that notion is completely foreign to the concept of energy.

Quote from: Thebox
, a point of existence where there is something of a positive nature rather than something of negative.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? The concept of negative energy is well-known in physics and appears in various places such as in the gravitational field of a negatively charged particles or in the gravitational field of a point object with finite mass.

Quote from: Thebox
Could we perceive Quanta , was pure energy  itself, how would we ever know?
There's no such thing as "pure energy" because such a thing is meaningless. Watch the

*

Offline DanielB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
  • Humanity working as one, for continual life.
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #7 on: 24/09/2015 15:28:18 »
Start with the mechanism by design and function.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-make-perfect-perpetual-copier-daniel-baxter?trk=mp-reader-card

Two hyperbolic manifold's, in a inverse direction formation, around a rotating sphere, forming a pseudosphere, as two directional forces meet,,and then produce outbound flow. The temperate difference in regards to the matter in containment of it's rotation, force, the temperate repulsion, keeps it from coming within.   

Forming the mechanism.    Which turn into two tubular formation's,, encircling, each manifold,, and then allowing the cycle of function for the mechanism.


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #8 on: 24/09/2015 19:07:46 »






http://physics.info/light/




''Light is a transverse, electromagnetic wave that can be seen by humans. ''


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, light in air or space is not observed and is ''clear'' a frequency of zero with no net charge because there is no interference causing the speed to change to create a wave,  a particle will remain at a linear velocity unless there is an external force applied on the particle.
I do not wish to know the nature of light, I am the one explaining it because I truly understand light's behaviour. 

I understand that sight is evolution adjustment to the constant allowing a visual ''transparency'' of all of space, light allows sight to penetrate space.

A force can only be a force if there is an opposing body to make that force, space has no mechanism to compress light, allowing the ''alpha'' particle(quanta), to travel at c unaltered as the constant, and spectral frequencies are an offset to the constant, temporal subset constants of the constant.


Zero point space is the minimum limit of everything, energy is this small.  Mass cannot exist without energy , energy came first.

« Last Edit: 24/09/2015 19:11:16 by Thebox »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #9 on: 24/09/2015 21:10:08 »
Quote from: Thebox
Light can not be seen by humans it can be detected by a humans remote sensors that is interpreted by the brain as light.
The process of "light entering the eye and falling on the retina where its translated into signals which are sent to and interpreted by the brain" is what is known as "seeing". That's why your claim that light can not be seen is wrong.

Quote from: Thebox
   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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #10 on: 25/09/2015 03:00:04 »


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.

Pete observe the space between your eyes and an object

what do you see in that space ignoring the object?

Do you see Quanta ?

I think not.

Do you see a constant clarity?

I think so

Now Pete observe the object,

do you see Quanta interacting with the object ?

a spectral constant, different to the constant clarity,


The frequency of ''white light'' is at an equilibrium to sight, the clarity you see through  and are submerged in, is a constant speed and a constant clarity. Yes you observe spectral content, all the wavelengths,  wavelengths that is only there by interaction.

No opposing force there is no net charge, radiation is harmless unless it makes contact with matter.  Light is flat line in space and not a wave . It only waves when it becomes compressed.


Energy is quanta, quanta is exchanged from mass to mass, quanta is a dot of dormant +.  1 quanta does not = E, 1 quanta impacting m=E








« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 04:43:57 by Thebox »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #11 on: 25/09/2015 05:25:32 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #12 on: 25/09/2015 14:01:16 »
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.

Hmmm, it is a serious question Pete, one that all science sidetracks and keep ignoring because they know I am very well correct.

Like yourself can not answer because you know your answer will agree with me.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #13 on: 25/09/2015 14:06:57 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #14 on: 25/09/2015 14:39:59 »
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 redshift you refer to is simply because the matter is moving away from the light and the radiation pressure on the surface of the matter is being lessened by lessened force of the light by the matter travelling the same direction has the light causing the compression of the light to decompress. Blue shift is the opposite to this, the radiation pressure is increased by travelling into the light creating a greater force and greater radiation pressure, causing the linearity of the flow to compress.  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.

Protons emit electrons and at the same time attract electrons, this is mistakenly taken for an electron attached to a proton. The interaction of matter and light is an electron-electron reaction.  An  isotropic electrical emitted field holding back the electron field of space.

Gravity mechanism is simply protons attracted to protons, but at the same time electrons repelling electrons, and 3 quarks are enough to generate enough strength field to ensure this.

Negative is attractive to negative, positive repels positive.


Positive is the disruption of space.


the speed of light is an escape velocity of emittance into space from rate of emittance, the speed of light is actually zero.


The total sum of negativeness of earth , is attracted to  the total sum of negativeness of the sun, and the total positiveness of earth is repelled by the total positiveness of the sun.

The expansion is polarisation, entropy changing back and forth due to thermodynamics.






« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 14:49:57 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1917
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #15 on: 25/09/2015 15:32:14 »
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.

Not. Even. Close. You are worse than Calvin's dad in Calvin and Hobbes--making explanations up on the fly and trying to pass them off as knowledge. If the blue shift was responsible for the color of the sky, why is the sun yellow? The color of the sky from sunrise to sunset is all easily explained by the constant spectral emission of the sun, and the properties of our atmosphere (mostly scattering and refraction).

The Earth is always falling towards the Sun, but moving to fast to hit it (some people call this "orbiting"). The sun looks like it moves through the sky because the Earth is spinning on an axis, and this has nothing to do with the orbit. There is always a sunset and a sunrise and a high noon, and everything in between happening simultaneously across the Earth. The only difference is the relative angle of the sun in the sky from the various points--the overall relationship between the Earth and the Sun is essentially constant, and certainly couldn't be changing "at sunset."


*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #16 on: 25/09/2015 15:56:19 »
Quote from: puppypower
Energy or photons move at the speed of light, ...
Energy is an abstract quantity which is merely a bookkeeping device which is a constant of motion. It has neither a position nor a speed. What has a position and/or speed is the thing which has energy. Light has energy and light has a speed. However a bullet has energy and a bullet has speed. But that speed most certainty doesn't move at the speed of light.

Quote from: puppypower
We see red shifted energy from distance galaxies, ...
That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.

Quote from: puppypower
Say you were to sit on a photon to view the universe from its speed of light reference.
That is physically impossible so any thought experiments which uses such an idea is incorrect.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #17 on: 25/09/2015 16:18:01 »

That 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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #18 on: 25/09/2015 16:27:49 »

That 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 http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm  again. This time read it more carefully.
« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 16:42:40 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #19 on: 25/09/2015 17:02:52 »

That 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 http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm  again. This time read it more carefully.


You are not considering that protons absorb quanta and release quanta at the same rate, the entropy tries to remain at an equilibrium, you do not detect an electron shell, you detect the quanta being released but are observing it by different means.
The electron is Quanta.


We can compress Quanta and run it through a wire to an element, the Quanta then decompresses when it is released.


« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 17:26:56 by Thebox »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #20 on: 26/09/2015 02:50:43 »
Quote from: Thebox
You are not considering that protons absorb 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.

Quote from: Thebox
The electron is Quanta.
That is quite incorrect. The term quanta is the plural for quantum. Please see; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quanta

The electron is a quantum of charge.

You still have a major misunderstanding of energy. Take my word for it. You don't know what it is. You need to keep searching the internet for definitions which you'll understand and are reliable sources.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #21 on: 26/09/2015 04:08:20 »

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.



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.



*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #22 on: 26/09/2015 09:24:46 »
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. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #23 on: 26/09/2015 12:57:16 »
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.

Would you really understand E=E

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #24 on: 26/09/2015 13:04:22 »
That at least makes sense, but it's too obvious to interest anyone but a philosopher, who would ask "what do you mean by "="?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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.


-=+


x=1 quark

x=quantum implode.

atoms-[attachment=20038]


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

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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.


*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #29 on: 27/09/2015 14:30:14 »
"=" It is constant.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #30 on: 27/09/2015 16:45:46 »
"=" It is constant.


also immortal.

*

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 83
    • View Profile
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! 

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1917
    • View Profile
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!

Please pardon my amusement.  [:P]

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
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 »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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 »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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!

Please pardon my amusement.  [:P]

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 »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
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 »

*

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 83
    • View Profile
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..

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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 »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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 »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • View Profile
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 »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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 »

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
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 »