[guest39538]

If the charge of an object increases in magnitude does the object gain mass?

>q=>F=>M?

[Kryptid]

There is no known way to change the net charge of an object without either adding charged particles to or removing charged particles from it. For example, you can add an electron to a hydrogen atom to form the negatively charged hydride anion, which weighs slightly more than neutral hydrogen due to the extra electron. Alternatively, you can remove an electron from a hydrogen atom to form the positively charged hydrogen cation (often a bare proton), which has a net positive charge and weighs slightly less than neutral hydrogen due to the loss of the electron. Increasing net charge does not necessarily correspond to an increase in mass.

[guest39538]

There is no known way to change the net charge of an object without either adding charged particles to or removing charged particles from it. For example, you can add an electron to a hydrogen atom to form the negatively charged hydride anion, which weighs slightly more than neutral hydrogen due to the extra electron. Alternatively, you can remove an electron from a hydrogen atom to form the positively charged hydrogen cation (often a bare proton), which has a net positive charge and weighs slightly less than neutral hydrogen due to the loss of the electron. Increasing net charge does not necessarily correspond to an increase in mass.

Ok, for example I had a conductor of electricity on a set of insulated scales that had 1 kg mass.   If I was to ''beam'' electricity at the conductor, would the conductor be gaining electrons, protons, or both?   Would the 1 kg measurement on the scales change in any way?

[Kryptid]

Ok, for example I had a conductor of electricity on a set of insulated scales that had 1 kg mass.   If I was to ''beam'' electricity at the conductor, would the conductor be gaining electrons, protons, or both?   Would the 1 kg measurement on the scales change in any way?

Sending electric current through a conductor usually doesn't have much effect on the conductor's net charge if it's something like a wire. This is because, in the case of direct current, electrons are flowing out of the conductor at the same rate that they are flowing into it. In alternating current, electrons don't enter or leave the conductor, but instead simply oscillate back and forth in a similar way that air molecules oscillate back and forth when sound waves pass through them. The current will, however, create a net magnetic field. In some cases, like a Tesla coil, I think there is a gain in net charge because it's acting in a similar way to static build up when you shuffle your feet across a carpet.

Sending electricity through a conductor would technically increase its mass by a very, very tiny amount because its electrons would have more kinetic energy than they did before (and you know about the whole mass-energy thing of relativity). For a Tesla coil, the mass would also increase in proportion to the total gain in electrons.

[guest39538]

Ok, for example I had a conductor of electricity on a set of insulated scales that had 1 kg mass.   If I was to ''beam'' electricity at the conductor, would the conductor be gaining electrons, protons, or both?   Would the 1 kg measurement on the scales change in any way?

Sending electric current through a conductor usually doesn't have much effect on the conductor's net charge if it's something like a wire. This is because, in the case of direct current, electrons are flowing out of the conductor at the same rate that they are flowing into it. In alternating current, electrons don't enter or leave the conductor, but instead simply oscillate back and forth in a similar way that air molecules oscillate back and forth when sound waves pass through them. The current will, however, create a net magnetic field. In some cases, like a Tesla coil, I think there is a gain in net charge because it's acting in a similar way to static build up when you shuffle your feet across a carpet.

Sending electricity through a conductor would technically increase its mass by a very, very tiny amount because its electrons would have more kinetic energy than they did before (and you know about the whole mass-energy thing of relativity). For a Tesla coil, the mass would also increase in proportion to the total gain in electrons.

Ok, thank you for your answer. I am asking these question because I am and have been considering that if the amount of charge in an object is directly proportional to its mass. You say the mass would increase in proportion to the total gain in electrons, to me saying that says the charge will increase in proportion to the gained electrons also?

[Kryptid]

Ok, thank you for your answer. I am asking these question because I am and have been considering that if the amount of charge in an object is directly proportional to its mass.

It isn't. Electrons and antiprotons have identical negative charge but the antiproton weighs over 1,800 times more than the electron. The Z boson weighs more than either an antiproton or an electron but has no charge at all.

[guest39538]

Ok, thank you for your answer. I am asking these question because I am and have been considering that if the amount of charge in an object is directly proportional to its mass.

It isn't. Electrons and antiprotons have identical negative charge but the antiproton weighs over 1,800 times more than the electron. The Z boson weighs more than either an antiproton or an electron but has no charge at all.

Anti -Proton?  A real thing or something a bit made up? 

added-

Is one electron equal to one negative charge magnitude? 

Is one Proton equal to one positive charge magnitude?

[Kryptid]

Anti -Proton?  A real thing or something a bit made up?

You need to stop with this shtick of assuming that something is made up because you've never heard of it before. Antiprotons are very much real.

Is one electron equal to one negative charge magnitude? 

Is one Proton equal to one positive charge magnitude?

Not in terms of mass, no. Positrons have the same degree of positive charge as protons even though they have a mass equal to that of an electron. Antiprotons have negative charge but are of the same mass as protons. We've already been through this in another thread.

[GoC]

It will someday be understood there is no charge to mass. Only flow, pressure and vacuum causing quantum mechanics. c is the cause of flow and position of mass causes the pressure and vacuum states of mass. Seven occupied spaces in chloride creates a vacuum needed to be filled by an eighth position for uniform distribution in space.

[guest39538]

Anti -Proton?  A real thing or something a bit made up?

You need to stop with this shtick of assuming that something is made up because you've never heard of it before. Antiprotons are very much real.

Is one electron equal to one negative charge magnitude? 

Is one Proton equal to one positive charge magnitude?

Not in terms of mass, no. Positrons have the same degree of positive charge as protons even though they have a mass equal to that of an electron. Antiprotons have negative charge but are of the same mass as protons. We've already been through this in another thread.

Well there does seem an awful amount of ''peas'' in the ''soup'' .  I do not believe personally there is so many different particles. I consider I have never observed an anti-proton, so of course I will be sceptic.

Let me change the context slightly and ask about force.  If an object increases in mass by lets say a single electrons mass, does the force of charge of the object increase on the charge of other objects?
(does the likewise charge of one object increase in force opposed on another likewise charge of a different object)

[Bored chemist]

am and have been considering that if the amount of charge in an object is directly proportional to its mass.

It isn't.
You can stop considering it.

[guest39538]

am and have been considering that if the amount of charge in an object is directly proportional to its mass.

It isn't.
You can stop considering it.

So if you declare it isn't then you must be able  to explain what is mass?

I already know you can't so to over rule something without detailed consideration would just be careless science.  From the information available atoms have a strong nuclear force and a charge force.  There is nothing else known. 

[Bored chemist]

you must be able  to explain what is mass?

Not at all.
I don't have to say what mass is- I just have to show that we can measure it (by definition) with a mass spectrometer.
Using one of those (and some other jiggery-pokery) we can show that a neutron has pretty nearly the same mass as a proton, but their charges are very different.
That shows that mass isn't proportional to charge.
I can also show that the mass of a positron is different from the mass of a proton; but their charges are the same.
So mass is not proportional to charge.

This has been pointed out to you before.
Instead of accepting it you make false statements like "you must be able  to explain what is mass? "


Why do you do that?
Why do you continue to flog this dead horse?

[Kryptid]

Well there does seem an awful amount of ''peas'' in the ''soup'' .  I do not believe personally there is so many different particles. I consider I have never observed an anti-proton, so of course I will be sceptic.

You've never seen a proton, electron or neutron either. It's not our problem if you don't believe in subatomic particles that have been documented to exist again and again by repeated experimentation performed by many different scientists over decades, that's your problem. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your theory is not how science works. No one is going to take you seriously if you continue doing this, especially not actual scientists who work with subatomic particles on a regular basis.

So if you declare it isn't then you must be able  to explain what is mass?

This is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

[guest39538]

Well there does seem an awful amount of ''peas'' in the ''soup'' .  I do not believe personally there is so many different particles. I consider I have never observed an anti-proton, so of course I will be sceptic.

You've never seen a proton, electron or neutron either. It's not our problem if you don't believe in subatomic particles that have been documented to exist again and again by repeated experimentation performed by many different scientists over decades, that's your problem. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your theory is not how science works. No one is going to take you seriously if you continue doing this, especially not actual scientists who work with subatomic particles on a regular basis.

So if you declare it isn't then you must be able  to explain what is mass?

This is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Some people like myself need the hands on experience before things can be accepted. There is no  doubt in my mind if shown proof I would gladly accept the proof.   Sometimes a person needs to observe the truth and not only be told the truth.
My argument about mass is not ignorance, you know very well we call something mass but are uncertain what that something actually is.
There is no ignorance in stating the truth.

Scientists would never take me serious no matter how correct I was in certain things. I do not fit the profile lets say, the royal society would never accept somebody like me.  The best I could hope for is some relative agreement on such a forum as this.
Mass applies a force of attraction we call gravity, what is the mechanics behind the force? The only thing that it could possibly be is opposite charges attract, unless you  have an alternative explanation?

[guest39538]

m1→←m2

q1→←q2

Quite a striking resemblance I must say...

[Kryptid]

Some people like myself need the hands on experience before things can be accepted.

Given that you no doubt have not had hands-on experience with the enormous majority of currently accepted scientific concepts, I guess you doubt the majority of established scientific knowledge then.

Scientists would never take me serious no matter how correct I was in certain things. I do not fit the profile lets say, the royal society would never accept somebody like me.

If your model could make unique, falsifiable predictions and those predictions were borne out through observation and experimentation, then it would be worthy of scientific interest. So far, it does not.

The best I could hope for is some relative agreement on such a forum as this.

At the current rate, not likely.

Mass applies a force of attraction we call gravity, what is the mechanics behind the force? The only thing that it could possibly be is opposite charges attract, unless you  have an alternative explanation?

Firstly, "If you can't show why I'm wrong, that means I'm right" is the argument from ignorance fallacy. Secondly, Einstein described the nature of gravity and its relationship to mass over 100 years ago and without the need to reference electric charge at all.

[guest39538]

Firstly, "If you can't show why I'm wrong, that means I'm right" is the argument from ignorance fallacy. Secondly, Einstein described the nature of gravity and its relationship to mass over 100 years ago and without the need to reference electric charge at all.

Well technically if you can't show something to be wrong then there may be a chance that the something is true. It is not me who is and keeps ignoring things that may be true. 
Einstein explained mass as mass , the word mass does not explain the mechanics itself and we both know this.

Let us ignore the word mass temporarily and try to get a question answered rather than a sort of null response.

I have here two objects side by side.

Is q1 of object one attracted to q2 of object 2?

Yes or no

[Kryptid]

Well technically if you can't show something to be wrong then there may be a chance that the something is true.

"May" being the operative word here. There "may" be aliens living inside of the Earth because no one has shown it to be wrong.

It is not me who is and keeps ignoring things that may be true.

Your theory contradicts known science, so I know that isn't true.

Einstein explained mass as mass , the word mass does not explain the mechanics itself and we both know this.

Nor does the word "charge" explain the mechanics of charge itself.

Let us ignore the word mass temporarily and try to get a question answered rather than a sort of null response.

I have here two objects side by side.

Is q1 of object one attracted to q2 of object 2?

Yes or no

That depends upon whether they are the same charge or different charges.

[guest39538]

Well technically if you can't show something to be wrong then there may be a chance that the something is true.

"May" being the operative word here. There "may" be aliens living inside of the Earth because no one has shown it to be wrong.

It is not me who is and keeps ignoring things that may be true.

Your theory contradicts known science, so I know that isn't true.

Einstein explained mass as mass , the word mass does not explain the mechanics itself and we both know this.

Nor does the word "charge" explain the mechanics of charge itself.

Let us ignore the word mass temporarily and try to get a question answered rather than a sort of null response.

I have here two objects side by side.

Is q1 of object one attracted to q2 of object 2?

Yes or no

That depends upon whether they are the same charge or different charges.

In what way does my notion contradict known science? When the very science I am using is known science!
Q1 and q2 are obviously opposite charges .  q1 even in words is obviously not likewise to q2.