[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[alancalverd]

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. 

[guest39538]

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

[alancalverd]

That at least makes sense, but it's too obvious to interest anyone but a philosopher, who would ask "what do you mean by "="?

[guest39538]

I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.

[guest39538]

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.


-³=+


x=1 quark

x³=quantum implode.

atoms- [ Invalid Attachment ]

[alancalverd]

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. 

[guest39538]

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.

[GoC]

"=" It is constant.

[guest39538]

"=" It is constant.

also immortal.

[ProjectSailor]

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! 

[guest39538]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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.  []

[PmbPhy]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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.  []

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

[ProjectSailor]

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..

[guest39538]

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.