0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anything that is neutral could be plus and neg
Quote from: Thebox on 20/03/2018 21:45:19Anything that is neutral could be plus and negI'm afraid not. Objects which contain both positive and negative charges have magnetic moments and are capable of participating in electromagnetic interactions. The neutron, for example, is neutral but contains internal electric charges which give it a magnetic moment. Such is not true for z-bosons, neutrinos or photons. All of those particles are either without any magnetic moment at all or have one that is too small to measure. Neutral black holes should not have magnetic moments either, as they are not composed of anything more fundamental than themselves. Neutrinos are also known not to interact with the electromagnetic force at all, further showing that they do not contain any electric fields.
What if our equipment is just simply not advanced enough to measure the electrical properties of any sub atomic particle? The affects so minute . they are almost negligible.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/03/2018 21:55:55What if our equipment is just simply not advanced enough to measure the electrical properties of any sub atomic particle? The affects so minute . they are almost negligible. That has its own consequences. If you propose that gravity is actually the result of electromagnetic attraction, then more total electric charges result in stronger gravitational fields. This, in turn, means that objects that contain more total charge should be more massive than those with less total charge (since mass is seen to correlate with gravity). If this was true, then particles that are more massive than the proton must necessarily contain more electric charges than it does and in turn must have a higher magnetic moment than the proton (more electric charge results in stronger magnetic fields).The z-boson violates this as it is almost 100 times heavier than the proton. If its very large mass was caused by a large amount of internal charge (as your model posits), then it must also have a magnetic moment much higher than that of the proton. Yet the opposite is true. The proton has a measurable magnetic moment while the z-boson does not.
The Z bosons are made up of W bosons? F²
Quote from: Thebox on 20/03/2018 22:24:06The Z bosons are made up of W bosons? F² That doesn't avoid the problem, since W bosons have electric charge equal in magnitude to that of the proton. Therefore, a pair of W bosons should still have a high magnetic moment. Secondly, a pair of W bosons would weigh more than a Z boson (W bosons weigh 80.4 GeV while the Z boson weighs 91.2 GeV).EDIT: I've actually made a mistake. After doing some further research, it turns out that particles with internal electric charges can actually have a magnetic moment of zero. Alpha particles are an example of such a particle.As I've said before, I urge you to calculate how strong the attractive force between two objects would be using your proposed model of gravity and see if it matches the actual force of gravity. You can start with something very simple like a pair of hydrogen atoms that are separated by some given distance (say, one nanometer). Use Coulomb's law to calculate the force acting between each electric charge and see what it all adds up to. Here is a link that can help you with your calculations: https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-coulomb-force-between-two-electrons-that-are-on-opposite-sides-of-th
q1 + q2 = m How do we measure the force of gravity again?
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2)
What does a gravitational constant mean?
I don't understand this part. F=(6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2)(m1m2)/r²Am I reading that correctly?
Or are you saying G = m1m2/r²
My brain is overloading this is not computing, kilogram * kilogram divided by radius squared is just not computing in my brain as being associative to gravity. Kilogram is the consequence of G, it sounds messy to me. Scratches head.
I get GF = (F1 + F2) + (F1 + F2)((F1 + F2) + (F1 + F2)) > (F1 + F2)My calculation is calculating from a point perspective, your calculation is the force over a radius?
Quote from: Thebox on 22/03/2018 16:17:17What does a gravitational constant mean?It's a measure of how much gravity is produced by a given amount of mass.QuoteI don't understand this part. F=(6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2)(m1m2)/r²Am I reading that correctly?You don't need to completely understand the units being used here just so long as you can do the calculation. The result will be in newtons anyway, which is easy to understand.QuoteOr are you saying G = m1m2/r²Nope, the first version is the correct one. G is a constant.Quote from: Thebox on 22/03/2018 16:24:09My brain is overloading this is not computing, kilogram * kilogram divided by radius squared is just not computing in my brain as being associative to gravity. Kilogram is the consequence of G, it sounds messy to me. Scratches head.The strength of gravity felt at a given location is determined by both mass and distance, hence the kilogram and meters.At any rate, I already did the calculation for the amount of gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms separated by 1 nanometer. The result was 1.869 x 10-46 newtons.Quote from: Thebox on 22/03/2018 16:31:27I get GF = (F1 + F2) + (F1 + F2)((F1 + F2) + (F1 + F2)) > (F1 + F2)My calculation is calculating from a point perspective, your calculation is the force over a radius?Yes, the force over a given distance is what I'm looking for. How much attractive force does your N-field produce between two hydrogen atoms separated by 1 nanometer? That's the calculation you need to do.
Shrugs shoulders and looks lost (8.9875×109 N m² C−2)^2 + (8.9875×109 N m² C−2)^2 I have no idea what I am doing with this math , but the above is what I need i think, cant make the - , go high either or the 9
Quote from: Thebox on 22/03/2018 21:45:48Shrugs shoulders and looks lost (8.9875×109 N m² C−2)^2 + (8.9875×109 N m² C−2)^2 I have no idea what I am doing with this math , but the above is what I need i think, cant make the - , go high either or the 9 You do superscripts with [ sup][ /sup] and subscripts with [ sub][ /sub]. Just don't put the spaces in there like I did in this particular post.When I get back, I'll post a step-by-step of how I would do the calculations.
Ok thank you and here is the way I do step by step calculations. m1.jpg (19.27 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3527 times)I am not sure what this means yet, but I get 0.25 as a result for m1 by doing 0.5²1/4 = g ?
So what does that translate to in actual units?