[guest39538]

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.















 

[chiralSPO]

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."

[scotty stull]

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!

[guest39538]

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.

[scotty stull]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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?

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.

what is the gravity mechanism?

You've been told on multiple occasions that the mechanism of gravity is unknown as of yet.

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.

What is energy?

You're repeating yourself, again!

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.

, 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.

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

[DanielB]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

   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.

[guest39538]

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

[PmbPhy]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[puppypower]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[chiralSPO]

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."

[PmbPhy]

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.

We see red shifted energy from distance galaxies, ...

That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[guest39538]

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.