The nature of Energy.

  • 87 Replies
  • 5179 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #50 on: 29/09/2015 16:07:08 »
So a Gluon is a theoretical ''particle'' that glues all matter together?

Why particle and not an energy field?


My understanding is that a gluon is a virtual particle, and as such is a way of describing a field. (Just as electric fields can be described by virtual photons)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #51 on: 29/09/2015 16:36:20 »
Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #52 on: 29/09/2015 16:54:09 »
Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.

Who are you asking the question to?


They are the same thing, virtual,because when observation reaches it's limits , imagination creates virtual things and theories about these virtual things that do not exist in reality of observation. Real fact is observation, anything else is just hearsay and speculation. A comparison to after the creation part  in religion, the imagination ran riot .

People defend things that are virtual as if these things are actual fact. Beyond observation is imagination, imagination is not fact.






« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 16:56:15 by Thebox »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #53 on: 29/09/2015 17:15:03 »
Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.   

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #54 on: 29/09/2015 17:28:31 »
Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.
Virtual particles aren't really particles. They're simply mathematical gizmos to make things work right. That's what a particle physicist told me.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #55 on: 29/09/2015 17:40:43 »
Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.

You know a lot of things who are you?

A virtual particle, can I name it the Negatron for the purpose of my topic?

The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?

The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge .

A combination of Negatrons and Positrons denoting a virtual ''elastic  like''  coupling  of matter to matter by sending a Negatron virtual carrier signal through the constant conduit of light, and light is plasmorphic when it interacts with matter by temporal shift of the constant.


to far?

You can argue gravity still exists in the dark, but I will argue that the darkness is not without light, the light is just undetectable to human vision, cbmr remains to be the conduit for the negatron linearity. Simply consider space is Neutral always, 0 frequency of light, O net charge, O interaction ,  we send charge as waves through the constant that is why they are detectable.



« Last Edit: 29/09/2015 18:22:48 by Thebox »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #56 on: 29/09/2015 19:14:04 »
Quote from: thebox
You know a lot of things who are you?

No one. I know nothing but I suspect many things.

Quote
A virtual particle, can I name it the Negatron for the purpose of my topic?

Why not. Its as good as simply mathematical gizmos.

Quote
The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?

Virtual flow is as bad as virtual particle. Describe what flows.

Quote
The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge

What is a linearity with no net charge? What is the flow of negatrons? Describe the negatrons with how and why they flow.

Quote
A combination of Negatrons and Positrons denoting a virtual ''elastic  like''  coupling  of matter to matter by sending a Negatron virtual carrier signal

What is a virtual carrier signal? What are the mechanics?

Quote
through the constant conduit of light

Describe the conduit of light.

Quote
light is plasmorphic when it interacts with matter by temporal shift of the constant.


We can get to that question after you describe the conduit for light.

Quote
to far?

That depends on the substance in your answers. If you cannot show the mechanics of your words we are left with a virtual theory. Follow a process from the beginning to the end. Cause and effect.

Quote
You can argue gravity still exists in the dark, but I will argue that the darkness is not without light

I can not argue either point gravity exists.

Quote
Simply consider space is Neutral always, 0 frequency of light, O net charge, O interaction ,  we send charge as waves through the constant that is why they are detectable.


Describe the formation and form of a charge through space. Also describe plasma.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #57 on: 29/09/2015 20:14:41 »
Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.

My understanding (similar to what pmb has heard, it appears) is that virtual particles are just a tricky way of modeling a field. I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist. A model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.

Photons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.

Dark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors. They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction, so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious. This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 599
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #58 on: 29/09/2015 21:14:35 »
Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference. 

This tells us photons have two connected, but separate aspects, one which connects them to a speed of light reference, and the other connects to inertial reference. Energy appears to be a bridge between matter and a speed of light reference, because it can go both ways at the same time.

If we take  extreme energy photons these can split into matter and antimatter. Once this happens, this will do is disconnect the photon from its  speed of light aspect, since matter and antimatter cannot move at C. Inertial forms at less than C.

If we remove the anti-matter, so there is an excess of matter, what you end up with continues to exist at the potential of extreme energy photons (1/2 potential), yet it can't directly convert back to directly to energy due to loss of antimatter. Instead matter is stuck at extreme potential, and needs to find others path back to energy.

If you look at gravity, this causes matter to attract and get denser, causing space-time to contract. If you look closely, mass and gravity causes the reference to contract and therefore move in the general direction of the speed of light; space-time contracts to a point. Gravity is just matter trying to return to energy to lower the potential. Blackholes allow matter to get close to C reference. while stars approach this limit, but fall short. Instead they use fusion for partial mass burn back into energy.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #59 on: 29/09/2015 21:15:48 »

Quote
The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?

Virtual flow is as bad as virtual particle. Describe what flows.space

Quote
The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge

What is a linearity with no net charge? What is the flow of negatrons? Describe the negatrons with how and why they flow.space


I will answer in parts, I will consider how I am going to write this.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #60 on: 29/09/2015 21:22:58 »
Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference. 



Photons are invisible to sight in space, this is constant to all observers in all reference frames. We see through the light and do not actually see photons until they interact with something.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #61 on: 29/09/2015 21:23:55 »
Quote
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.

Then why mention them if they do not exist?

Quote
A model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--

Ok, What is the physical make up of a field then.


Quote
--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.

Either way particle or field what is the field constructed from?

Quote
Photons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.

What is the photon constructed from?

Quote
Dark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors.

How are they different from Mathematical gizmo's, virtual particles and fictitious forces?

Quote
  They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction


But now they need correction?

Quote
so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious.

Understanding is always a worthwhile endeavor.

Quote
This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.

If we are all in the box of respect for the standard model and the mysteries are outside of the respected box will we ever have a chance for understanding? I am not against the standard model but I am against all fudge terms that bring more questions than they answer. I am not happy with someone throwing fairy dust on me while I try to climb the tree of knowledge.


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #62 on: 29/09/2015 23:36:01 »
Ok so far I have wrote this

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/?p=371&preview=true&preview_id=371

do you understand this?

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #63 on: 30/09/2015 00:12:21 »
Quote
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.

Then why mention them if they do not exist?
I remember a professor of particle physics saying we should forget we ever saw the word “particle” in virtual particle. It is not a particle at all but a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own and is caused by the presence of other particles or fields.
Probably not a good analogy, but I think of 2 ships passing, their bow waves hit each other and cause both to rock, we might say they have exchanged a virtual particle. Don't know if that helps or hinders [:)]
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #64 on: 30/09/2015 00:29:11 »
Quote
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.

Then why mention them if they do not exist?
I remember a professor of particle physics saying we should forget we ever saw the word “particle” in virtual particle. It is not a particle at all but a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own and is caused by the presence of other particles or fields.
Probably not a good analogy, but I think of 2 ships passing, their bow waves hit each other and cause both to rock, we might say they have exchanged a virtual particle. Don't know if that helps or hinders [:)]
No the wave is particles and applies a force, both boats rock because the plane they were travelling on has become unbalanced.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #65 on: 30/09/2015 00:46:06 »
Quote
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.

Then why mention them if they do not exist?

Because they make it easier to talk about and think about what's going on. Imaginary numbers don't "exist." Neither do electron orbitals, trajectories or coordinate systems. But, just because they have no physical, corporeal essence doesn't mean we can't talk about them, or even make good use of the concepts.

Quote
Quote
A model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--

Ok, What is the physical make up of a field then.


Quote
--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.

Either way particle or field what is the field constructed from?

The field is the same as the particle. It is constructed of anything, it is just a way of explaining what happens. What is an orbit made of? Can you describe how a planet and its moon interact without talking about an orbit? (yes it's possible, but how easy is it?)

Quote
Quote
Photons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.

What is the photon constructed from?

I don't know if a photon is made of anything smaller. My understanding is that they are currently viewed as indivisible elementary particles. They are made of photons.

Quote
Quote
Dark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors.

How are they different from Mathematical gizmo's, virtual particles and fictitious forces?

Quote
  They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction


But now they need correction?

Quote
so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious.

Understanding is always a worthwhile endeavor.

Quote
This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.

If we are all in the box of respect for the standard model and the mysteries are outside of the respected box will we ever have a chance for understanding? I am not against the standard model but I am against all fudge terms that bring more questions than they answer. I am not happy with someone throwing fairy dust on me while I try to climb the tree of knowledge.

I think you might be misunderstanding my intended meaning. Models are ALL wrong. There is nothing we can do about that. However, if we can generate a model that allows us to predict something accurately, it is useful. If it only makes predictions that agree with what is observed, and there are never any contradictions found, models can turn into accepted theories or even laws.

Models can be amended to include extra terms or factors, such as going from the ideal gas law (which works very well for light gases at high temperatures and low pressures, but cannot predict condensation, and generally fails with polyatomic and polar gases) to the van der Waals equation, which has added fudge factors to account for the fact that molecules actually do interact with each other and have non-zero volume. In many situations the predictions of the two models are insignificantly different, and it is much easier to use the ideal gas law, but when accuracy really matters, or when considering gases under conditions where they are far from ideal, the more complex model is superior.

Models can also be amended to include limitations, such acknowledging that Newtonian mechanics breaks down when we consider very small things, very high velocities, or very massive things. There is more going on than the simple picture painted in classical mechanics, but I have never known a civil engineer worry about quantum or relativistic corrections to the equations they use when building a dam.

Models can also be discarded and replaced with a fundamentally different type of model. For instance, the geocentric model of astronomy worked quite well for some things. The ancient Greeks and Mayans could have (and may have) predicted the lunar eclipse we just had, probably down to the day. But at a certain point, the Greeks realized that their models did not predict all that they observed. They tweaked the model and added another parameter (epicycles) that made their model agree nearly perfectly with all of their observations. But, many centuries later, it was shown that, actually a heliocentric model was simpler, more accurate, and ultimately a better model of how things actually work.

There are countless other examples of these types of shifts. The question I meant to raise earlier is: do we just need to add in the fudge factors that make the models work on cosmic scales and then figure out what is means (like molecules have non-zero volume), or do we need to scrap our current model completely and adopt a different world-view (like heliocentric vs geocentric models). I don't know what the answer is, no one does now, but with more data collected and more theorists working on the problems, I think we may be able to move forward on this problem.
« Last Edit: 30/09/2015 00:49:33 by chiralSPO »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #66 on: 30/09/2015 00:56:31 »
Quote
or does the existence of a background radiation provide the answer to this?

Does the light not pass through the background radiation on its journey as obviously the background radiation is in the light’s path?

Could the background radiation be the light?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #67 on: 30/09/2015 01:08:54 »
Quote
or does the existence of a background radiation provide the answer to this?

Does the light not pass through the background radiation on its journey as obviously the background radiation is in the light’s path?

Could the background radiation be the light?

Back ground radiation is light in respect to observation by device, the intensity of CBMR is to low to visually observe by eye any significant change of a dark room without the aid of a light source to increase the intensity present in the space of the room.
Talking openly, I see CBMR as ember like that has lost most of its energy, but keeps on burning because fuel is added, i see electricity compressed running through a wire into a light bulb element where the electricity is then decompressed and ''diluted'' by the volume of space, the solution. I see the compressed spectral colour on my screen right now that decompresses when leaving my screen into space.

added- the speed of light is a rate , denoted by emittance magnitude and the transference of energy through the CBMR.  An emission rate similar to using cgi and a particle emitter. I suppose I am saying Luminous CBMR constant, the quotient of the luminous flux of a radiation and its corresponding radiant flux K.


Would CBMR be efficacious to my idea?






« Last Edit: 30/09/2015 02:19:54 by Thebox »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #68 on: 30/09/2015 07:50:52 »
Quote from: GoC
Photons?
No. Protons. He thought that protons can emit or absorb energy. They can't

Quote from: GoC
Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct.
That too is incorrect. There are things which are 100% correct by definition such as what energy is. In the present case the box thought he could define energy to the way he thought it was and in that case he's just plain wrong. Definitions are not up for change in any new theory.

Although energy can't strictly be defined it can be adequately described so that there's little or no uncertainty in what it is. Also what is known is the current theories which are extremely accurate in that they predict and describe nature to something like 10 decimal places.

Quote from: GoC
If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest.
I don't discuss such things. I have no interest at all whether someone believes there is an aether or not. That's there problem, not mine.

By the way: to make sure what I said about protons I contacted an acquaintance of mine, a nuclear physicists at Stanford, and he confirmed for me that protons do not change their proper mass and can neither absorb or emit photons. Those are experimental facts.

Quote from: GoC
Lets physically describe the gluon.  Any takers?
What's so hard about that? It's off topic for this thread and as such I won't go there.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #69 on: 30/09/2015 07:52:36 »
Quote from: chiralSPO
Imaginary numbers don't "exist."
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 599
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #70 on: 30/09/2015 13:17:48 »
Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference. 



Photons are invisible to sight in space, this is constant to all observers in all reference frames. We see through the light and do not actually see photons until they interact with something.


Photons are invisible because they are in the speed of light reference. These two things are connected invisible and speed of light both being seen the same in all inertial references. Matter cannot move at †he speed of light and therefore cannot see energy directly. At the speed of light the universe appears as a point-instant; all things in the inertial universe appear to occur at the same time and place. What we see, is by affect, connected to the second aspect of energy; inertial wavelength and frequency; bridge to inertial.

Say we go back in time to time zero before the BB. Next, say we only have extreme energy photons, but before they begin to split into matter and anti-matter. There is no inertial material yet in existence for this energy to make itself known. It appears invisible in any reference, since there is nothing yet for it to interact with and make itself known. From inertial reference the universe appears void, since we cant see C and all photons appear invisible until they can interact to produce affect.

When these photons finally begins to split into matter and antimatter, then energy becomes visible, because it now has inertial based material to make itself known by affect. Matter and anti-matter can't move C, so inertial interaction makes the second leg of energy appear as a bridge between C and less than C; inertial. It is  the appearance of matter/antimatter that will "let there be light"; becomes affect becomes possible; a bridge is formed so energy as we know it, appears.


*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #71 on: 30/09/2015 14:25:24 »
Quote from: chiralSPO
Imaginary numbers don't "exist."
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)

I mean that they do not exist as physical entities (which is also true of any other numbers, all of which are concepts).

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #72 on: 30/09/2015 15:06:28 »
Quote
Quote from: GoC

Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct.



That too is incorrect. There are things which are 100% correct by definition such as what energy is. In the present case the box thought he could define energy to the way he thought it was and in that case he's just plain wrong. Definitions are not up for change in any new theory.

Although energy can't strictly be defined it can be adequately described so that there's little or no uncertainty in what it is. Also what is known is the current theories which are extremely accurate in that they predict and describe nature to something like 10 decimal places.


Are you confining energy into your understanding?


Quote
In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed.

A wiki reference. I think the box is suggesting the transfer mechanism in his negative and positive references. Lets take gravity for instance. There is kinetic and potential energy depending on position in the gravity well. Why is there a potential? Apparently the potential can be turned into kinetic. So where is the potential energy sitting? Within mass? How is it connected to the attraction point of gravity?

Quote
Quote from: GoC

If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest.

I don't discuss such things. I have no interest at all whether someone believes there is an aether or not. That's there problem, not mine.

What is your interest in new theories if it is their problem and not yours?
They are interested in their theories not the standard model theory.

Quote
By the way: to make sure what I said about protons I contacted an acquaintance of mine, a nuclear physicists at Stanford, and he confirmed for me that protons do not change their proper mass and can neither absorb or emit photons. Those are experimental facts.

Of course its a fact. Photons are only virtual and protons do not lose mass. So magic must be a fact?

Quote


Quote from: GoC

Lets physically describe the gluon.  Any takers?

What's so hard about that? It's off topic for this thread and as such I won't go there.
 
 

If a gluon is the energy that keeps an atom together it can be part of the discussion.

I understand your need to have strict definitions to maintain the standard model. New theories is not about the standard model. Definitions can be expanded when looking for a cause for postulates. The standard model is a closed interpretation as is your potential incites for new models. I know nothing. I read and data mine. I hope logic rules the day. I do not understand the cause of the relativity postulates. I am underwhelmed by the standard model and looking for a footing that explains the postulates. An atom does not lose mass or gain mass except by math relative to the photon creation. How does the electron create an energy transfer?

Quote
Quote from: PmbPhy on Today at 07:52:36



Quote from: chiralSPO

Imaginary numbers don't "exist."



That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)



I mean that they do not exist as physical entities (which is also true of any other numbers, all of which are concepts).

Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #73 on: 30/09/2015 15:38:23 »




Photons are invisible because they are in the speed of light reference. These two things are connected invisible and speed of light both being seen the same in all inertial references. Matter cannot move at †he speed of light and therefore cannot see energy directly. At the speed of light the universe appears as a point-instant; all things in the inertial universe appear to occur at the same time and place. What we see, is by affect, connected to the second aspect of energy; inertial wavelength and frequency; bridge to inertial.

Say we go back in time to time zero before the BB. Next, say we only have extreme energy photons, but before they begin to split into matter and anti-matter. There is no inertial material yet in existence for this energy to make itself known. It appears invisible in any reference, since there is nothing yet for it to interact with and make itself known. From inertial reference the universe appears void, since we cant see C and all photons appear invisible until they can interact to produce affect.

When these photons finally begins to split into matter and antimatter, then energy becomes visible, because it now has inertial based material to make itself known by affect. Matter and anti-matter can't move C, so inertial interaction makes the second leg of energy appear as a bridge between C and less than C; inertial. It is  the appearance of matter/antimatter that will "let there be light"; becomes affect becomes possible; a bridge is formed so energy as we know it, appears.

Sounds about right to me.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #74 on: 30/09/2015 15:42:17 »

That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)

Your a mathematician and you do not even understand what Maths is?

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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3258
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3258
    • 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3258
    • 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.

[attachment=20074]

In total I have 25 dimensions of space.

8*3=24+1=25

[attachment=20076]

ignore the keating part


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

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3258
    • 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.

[attachment=20078]


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

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3258
    • 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • 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
  • ******
  • 3258
    • 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/


[attachment=20080]

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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 565
    • View Profile
Re: The nature of Energy.
« Reply #86 on: 01/10/2015 04:39:45 »
Ok

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • 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=-or˛

-or˛=E

activate + -or˛




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