Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

:cheer:

 

We know. But no matter.

 

Well, Erwin Schrödinger had much to say about that.

 

You seem to have missed the point of course, which is about the concept of "correlation."

 

I posited that you would find correlation between "apples" and "red," but in this case you did not.

 

What's interesting about your answer here is that you seem to believe that it's an issue of *perception*, not measurable reality.

 

So given that you say that people might perceive the color differently, might you also grant that some people would see no charge where you see a great deal?

 

I think it's a splendid example with lots of possibilities, but we don't need to stay there if you don't want to.

 

"Individual" is the problem here. The word has only a colloquial meaning in science, and is not exacting enough to prove anything.

 

I know you're likely to be nonplussed by that assertion, but bear with me for a moment.

 

As a practical matter, if you throw 6 protons and 6 electrons into a perfect vacuum box with perfectly chargeless walls (we ignore that this is a practical impossibility for now), it's most likely that in a very short time, you'd end up with 6 hydrogen atoms with no externally measurable "charge." And given some way to locate "masses" you might find 6 "individual masses."

 

Now if you were able to reduce yourself and your equipment down to sub-atomic size, you *might* be able to measure the positive and negative charges in there, but you probably wouldn't like the after-effects.

 

But really, for all intents and purposes the answer to your question is: 6 masses, no measurable charge.

 

I've now read through some of your posts on this topic on a couple of other sites, and it appears that everyone you engage with tries to explain to you that "the charges aren't 'individual'" except at scales which don't influence the effect you're trying to conjure.

 

It seems all of them have given up after some length of time. 

 

If you perceive this as proving you are "right" about this, I'm not sure that anyone can disabuse you of this fundamental misunderstanding of how physics works.

 

Do you have an open mind? Most of the observers I see would answer that you don't. You might try to be a bit more open about how the world actually works.

 

 

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one, :phones:

Buffy

I have a very open mind.   I have just returned from a weeks holiday/vacation, hopefully my head is clear at the moment and I hope you will keep engaging me.  Most forums do not understand that I understand atomic structure, I understand that our measurements of charge can be A+B=N ,  electrically neutral.   People then insist I do not understand , putting their own words into their own  heads, their thoughts and imagination about me, a sort of Schizophrenia.  Ambiguous reading of my work being a big part in their failure to understand me. 

I understand them loud and clear, I often have challenged ''them'' to ask me about present information, in which I would answer in accordance to being like a robot reciting Wiki, (just like most of them).

 

Now objectively Buffy, when somebody comes along with new ideas, the new ideas should be tried to be understood by the reader. There is no point replying with present information to a new theory or hypothesis,  New being that which is new.

 

If people are saying they do not understand it, how do they know or can possibly assert the notion is wrong when they do not understand it? 

 

 

I asked you a question before I went away, I think you avoided the answer and went on to sidetrack the answer, turning my individuality question into a whole which was not the question. I understand you did this to keep present information ticking along, but........I am now in silly theories section, you do not have to reply with present information, otherwise your silly claims section is a pointless section. The same apllies for alternative theories. 

If you or this forum or any other forum feels they do not want to discuss new, then simply remove these topic sections and people like myself will only go where they do allow it. 

 

It is not me being stupid for having an idea and wanting to discuss that idea.  It is silly to discuss the new idea by a defence of the deemed error i.e the present information deemed wrong.  

 

 

Too me, you are saying that a wrong is right in some areas, this I will never accept to be true unless there is proof without doubt which science just simply does not have in some areas.

 

You are quite clearly a good moderator, (I am being objective about you).      You know what the title of forum section means, so objectively somebody posting silly claims, should not be banned if posting in the correct section.  Members who complain are complaining about posting in the right section.

 

You said

 

 

 

 "Individual" is the problem here. The word has only a colloquial meaning in science, and is not exacting enough to prove anything.

 

 

That would be wrong in my opinion, what about the Proton-proton chain ?    Are electrons and protons not individual in the Sun? 

 

 

Answer this please :

 

If M1=M2

 

 

M1(Q)=M2(Q)?

 

 

 

Even has a whole I see it as equal and proportionate.

 

 

1 Proton = 1*+1e

 

1 electron = 1*-e

 

I see in the above 2 masses = 2 charges?

 

 

Although we measure N when both are adjoined, there is still two individual charges of the atom in one atom.  Please explain where my thinking is at fault in this matter?  I am being objective so my thinking can not be incorrect.

 

 

ostensible
ɒˈstɛnsɪb(ə)l/
adjective
 
  1. stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so.
     
     
     
     
    Understand this please Buffy , you can't tarre of zero when the zero is setup as the constant.   I am trying to ''tell'' you that N is maybe ostensible
     
     

So do you think we could possibly discuss this , without instantly ruling it out? 

 

q1+q2=N

 

N=q1+q2

 

 

I see no difference in the above two formulas?

 

post-94325-0-99492500-1502576275_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What will get you into trouble is the combination of these three things:     and then:     in conjunction with:   You don't get to claim ignorance to justify demanding others accept your novel theori

If anyone wants a laugh, take a read of the first few pages of this thread from another forum, in which I encountered this guy under the name "theorist-constant", before he was banned: http://www.scif

Good! You can read a dictionary! :cheer:   Unfortunately you've proven quite well that you do not know how to apply definitions to the real world and use-cases thereof. So:   :umno: Properties are n

Posted Images

Is it a "learning difficulty" , or is it a refusal to learn?  When you believe you already have the answer, why ask the question?  Is it some bastardization of the Socratic method?

 

Well, now that you ave pointed the political forums at this site, I'm sure they will fix everything just as nicely as the rest of the internet.

It is neither if I am being honest, I can't have an opinion about something unless I have already learnt about that something. Everyone keeps insisting I have not learnt, these are their words and thoughts, not mine.  Of course I have learnt, that is why I have the ability to discuss the information.  

Do you think I could discuss charge and mass without knowing the content or some of the content involved? of course not , I have obviously therefore learnt about it. 

 

I know the answers of present information, mass is unanswered, so what is the harm in myself trying to workout what mass is or gravity mechanism? You don't know the answers and I will not rest until I get my answer. 

 

What do you think mass is ? 

 

gravity is an attractive force, what is the gravity between an electron and a proton if not charge? 

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is neither if I am being honest, I can't have an opinion about something unless I have already learnt about that something. Everyone keeps insisting I have not learnt, these are their words and thoughts, not mine.  Of course I have learnt, that is why I have the ability to discuss the information.  

Do you think I could discuss charge and mass without knowing the content or some of the content involved? of course not , I have obviously therefore learnt about it. 

 

I know the answers of present information, mass is unanswered, so what is the harm in myself trying to workout what mass is or gravity mechanism? You don't know the answers and I will not rest until I get my answer. 

 

What do you think mass is ? 

 

gravity is an attractive force, what is the gravity between an electron and a proton if not charge? 

Well, thinking about mass in terms of charge doesn't go anywhere towards explaining that mass creates a resistance to change in it's motion.  Two electrons are acted upon by a gravitational attractive force, but the repulsive force of their charge is far greater.

 

Of course, we don't have any greater understanding of the mechanisms at work behind charge than we do gravity.  We only know how it behaves, and gravity and charge behave quite differently. 

 

One example of the difference is that I can weld using electric charge to heat up the metal.  I can't even imagine trying to use the force of gravity to weld two pieces of steel together.  It would prove much more difficult and costly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thinking about mass in terms of charge doesn't go anywhere towards explaining that mass creates a resistance to change in it's motion.  Two electrons are acted upon by a gravitational attractive force, but the repulsive force of their charge is far greater.

 

Of course, we don't have any greater understanding of the mechanisms at work behind charge than we do gravity.  We only know how it behaves, and gravity and charge behave quite differently. 

 

One example of the difference is that I can weld using electric charge to heat up the metal.  I can't even imagine trying to use the force of gravity to weld two pieces of steel together.  It would prove much more difficult and costly.

Inertia is the resistance to a change in motion, but I am sure you already know this.   However, are you saying if we had two electrons divided by a distance, they would be attracted to each other by gravity but at point x stop because of the likewise charge having repulsive force? 

 

If this is true then one could only assume that mass was indeed something else unless the two electrons were some sort of opposite charge like the proton can be an anti-proton. 

 

Please excuse my limited knowledge when it comes to a positron and neutrinos etc, this is new knowledge to me which I am now trying to learn about.  

 

I have :

 

Gravity-Inertia-mass-Newtons  in that order?

 

I have Inertia of an object at rest 

 

N(Q1)→←N(Q2)?

 

 

N(Q2)→←N(Q1)?

 

I also have an energy field 3d matrix

 

 

010101

101010

010101

 

 

A uniform matrix where 1 can not overlap 1 and 0 can not overlap 0. 

 

post-94325-0-29145600-1502644466_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think ?

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Inertia is the resistance to a change in motion, but I am sure you already know this.   However, are you saying if we had two electrons divided by a distance, they would be attracted to each other by gravity but at point x stop because of the likewise charge having repulsive force? 

 

 

No, that is not what I am saying.  The gravitational force does not stop at any distance. It decreases over distance, and approaches 0, and even becomes negligible, but is not equal to 0. The force of gravity is far less than the electromotive force, so in a "tug of war" the electromotive force wins.

 

Gravity is a relatively easy force to overcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what I am saying.  The gravitational force does not stop at any distance. It decreases over distance, and approaches 0, and even becomes negligible, but is not equal to 0. The force of gravity is far less than the electromotive force, so in a "tug of war" the electromotive force wins.

 

Gravity is a relatively easy force to overcome.

Yes I know this, in accordance with the inverse square law, I believe charge also as the same process and decreases in force over distance ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know this, in accordance with the inverse square law, I believe charge also as the same process and decreases in force over distance ?

The electromotive force does decrease over distance, but it is still greater than the gravitational force.

 

Another difference between the electromotive force and the gravitational force is that, so far as we have ever been able to tell, gravitation is always a force of attraction.  There may be theories about anti-gravity, but no one has of yet been able to create or detect such a thing.

 

Just because you can balance different forces, and create equal but opposite forces, does not mean you have to use the same forces to do it.  Forces can be the same value but operate through different modes of action, even if we may not fully understand the mode of action.

Edited by Farming guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The electromotive force does decrease over distance, but it is still greater than the gravitational force.

 

Another difference between the electromotive force and the gravitational force is that, so far as we have ever been able to tell, gravitation is always a force of attraction.  There may be theories about anti-gravity, but no one has of yet been able to create or detect such a thing.

 

Just because you can balance different forces, and create equal but opposite forces, does not mean you have to use the same forces to do it.  Forces can be the same value but operate through different modes of action, even if we may not fully understand the mode of action.

You mention anti-gravity.  I observe several already example of ''anti-gravity''.  

 

:Magnetic suspension 

 

:lifters 

 

:Thermodynamic expansion

 

:Electrodynamics  expansion 

 

I consider all the above processes are an anti to gravity, my favourite is the lifter. 

post-94325-0-72573200-1502661563_thumb.jpg

 

added- it the difference in lightning, sheet lightning being -e and fork lightning that hits the ground being +1e  (i think)

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention anti-gravity.  I observe several already example of ''anti-gravity''.  

 

:Magnetic suspension 

 

:lifters 

 

:Thermodynamic expansion

 

:Electrodynamics  expansion 

 

I consider all the above processes are an anti to gravity, my favourite is the lifter. 

attachicon.giflifter.jpg

 

added- it the difference in lightning, sheet lightning being -e and fork lightning that hits the ground being +1e  (i think)

Again, they are merely overcoming gravity with another force, not creating a repulsive gravitational force.

 

It's sort of like 5-3 vs 4-2.   It is indeed the same difference, but the means of getting there is still different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, they are merely overcoming gravity with another force, not creating a repulsive gravitational force.

 

It's sort of like 5-3 vs 4-2.   It is indeed the same difference, but the means of getting there is still different. 

I do see what you are saying, but if we do not know exactly what the force of gravity is, how do we know we are not creating a repulsive gravitational force?  Meaning one of the forces used could be the anti gravity on a small scale, not knowing what gravity is could be giving us a false impression . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see what you are saying, but if we do not know exactly what the force of gravity is, how do we know we are not creating a repulsive gravitational force?  Meaning one of the forces used could be the anti gravity on a small scale, not knowing what gravity is could be giving us a false impression . 

We may not know the exact mechanism behind gravity, just as we don't really know the exact mechanism behind the electromotive force, but we do know how those forces behave.  The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object, and the electromotive force is proportional to the electrical charge.  If you have two boxes that each contain one electron and one neutron, the force of gravity will relate to the total mass of the electrons combined with the neutrons, whereas  the electromotive force will relate only to the charges of the electrons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We may not know the exact mechanism behind gravity, just as we don't really know the exact mechanism behind the electromotive force, but we do know how those forces behave.  The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object, and the electromotive force is proportional to the electrical charge.  If you have two boxes that each contain one electron and one neutron, the force of gravity will relate to the total mass of the electrons combined with the neutrons, whereas  the electromotive force will relate only to the charges of the electrons.

Finally somebody brought the Neutron in the ''equation''. 

 

You are easy to speak too Farming Guy , thanks. 

 

I have seen atoms with my own eyes in my own experiment.  I observe a dark circle surrounded by a light halo. I have never observed a Neutron thus far.  Could you please point me in the right direction to the observation of the Neutron please? 

 

Are we saying Neutrons have the same charge as Neutrinos and are similar?

 

Neutrinos are an obstruction to my thinking on charge=mass

 

 

 

The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object

 

Strong nuclear force or atomic charge force being the only force we know exists in the atom.   To me I think charge as to be proportional to mass, but I have to explain the neutron or neutrino, or explain them away some how. 

 

 

added- a thought just popped into my head that a neutrino contains light, electromagnetic radiation, so surely the Neutrino retains electrons? i.e if you can observe it, it must have E and q

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally somebody brought the Neutron in the ''equation''. 

 

You are easy to speak too Farming Guy , thanks. 

 

I have seen atoms with my own eyes in my own experiment.  I observe a dark circle surrounded by a light halo. I have never observed a Neutron thus far.  Could you please point me in the right direction to the observation of the Neutron please? 

 

Are we saying Neutrons have the same charge as Neutrinos and are similar?

 

Neutrinos are an obstruction to my thinking on charge=mass

 

 

 

 

Strong nuclear force or atomic charge force being the only force we know exists in the atom.   To me I think charge as to be proportional to mass, but I have to explain the neutron or neutrino, or explain them away some how. 

 

 

added- a thought just popped into my head that a neutrino contains light, electromagnetic radiation, so surely the Neutrino retains electrons? i.e if you can observe it, it must have E and q

 

Finally somebody brought the Neutron in the ''equation''. 

 

You are easy to speak too Farming Guy , thanks. 

 

I have seen atoms with my own eyes in my own experiment.  I observe a dark circle surrounded by a light halo. I have never observed a Neutron thus far.  Could you please point me in the right direction to the observation of the Neutron please? 

 

Are we saying Neutrons have the same charge as Neutrinos and are similar?

 

Neutrinos are an obstruction to my thinking on charge=mass

 

 

 

 

Strong nuclear force or atomic charge force being the only force we know exists in the atom.   To me I think charge as to be proportional to mass, but I have to explain the neutron or neutrino, or explain them away some how. 

 

 

added- a thought just popped into my head that a neutrino contains light, electromagnetic radiation, so surely the Neutrino retains electrons? i.e if you can observe it, it must have E and q

First, check out https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp32ne.html for a concise explanation of how neutrons were discovered.

 

Then there is more detail about "seeing" neutrons https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89330/how-would-neutron-matter-appear-to-the-naked-eye

Edited by Farming guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

First, check out https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp32ne.html for a concise explanation of how neutrinos were discovered.

 

Then there is more detail about "seeing" neutrons https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89330/how-would-neutron-matter-appear-to-the-naked-eye

Thank you for your links.  So we are looking at the Neutron as an individual particle, however this particle must have attractive properties and energy properties i.e charge ?

 

This brings us back to q1+q2=N , this Neutron particle being a sort of coupling of the electron and proton? Having both polarities contained observed as one.  A sort of neutral inside a neutral? 

 

added- Ok I have thought some more and think I have the answer

 

 

 

 

two electrons in the nucleus to yield a mass of 4 but a charge of only 2

 

The answer is m²   , you have to account for the inertia reference frame pull as well ?

 

F(q²)=m²

 

9dc223d84700f2471b8d0f99e7fa36d5.gif

 

b83e208c60e8a1ba50ca753fc86856bd.gif

 

q²=m²

 

F(q²)=G²=m²?

 

added - the above failed when I tried to do Plutonium but I still think q²=F²

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your links.  So we are looking at the Neutron as an individual particle, however this particle must have attractive properties and energy properties i.e charge ?

 

This brings us back to q1+q2=N , this Neutron particle being a sort of coupling of the electron and proton? Having both polarities contained observed as one.  A sort of neutral inside a neutral? 

 

added- Ok I have thought some more and think I have the answer

 

 

 

 

 

The answer is m²   , you have to account for the inertia reference frame pull as well ?

 

F(q²)=m²

 

9dc223d84700f2471b8d0f99e7fa36d5.gif

 

b83e208c60e8a1ba50ca753fc86856bd.gif

 

q²=m²

 

F(q²)=G²=m²?

 

added - the above failed when I tried to do Plutonium but I still think q²=F²

Don't forget about quarks, which I understand have spin and charge that is less than that of an electron, but that is beyond the limits of my college education.  ( I only had two semesters of physics and one of chemistry.)  I wouldn't want to rely on my recreational studies of these subjects to pass on to others.

 

And that brings up the question of not only what mass is, but also the question of what is charge.  It will take someone with more expertise to answer these questions in detail.

Edited by Farming guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget about quarks, which I understand have spin and charge that is less than that of an electron, but that is beyond the limits of my college education.  ( I only had two semesters of physics and one of chemistry.)  I wouldn't want to rely on my recreational studies of these subjects to pass on to others.

 

And that brings up the question of not only what mass is, but also the question of what is charge.  It will take someone with more expertise to answer these questions in detail.

Well I am sort of at the point where I think a point charge is proportional to the energy.  E=d25ef82c99f5e9803b09b5cf7e5cec20.gif

 

 

Where E is energy and q is charge and S is entropy .  However S could also be V (volume) and I think the result is the same.  1*q=1*E

 

I think at this stage I probably understand the strong nuclear force more than mass being charge.   It is quite interesting that if we was to attempt to split an atom by use of adding charge,  in every instant we attempted it , the bond between electron and Proton becomes stronger on the attempt. 

 

In explanation imagine if we had a ray gun that could fire a positive charge at an atom.  This would increase the q1+q2 attractive hold. The electron would be more so attracted to the greater positive Proton charge. The electron would gain relative mass. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...