0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thank you , you make a good valued argument against my notion. I am not sure that electromagnetism is the same thing as charge, but in light of your statement about the Neutrino not being massless as given the need for more thinking .
So you are saying to me if I had a handful of neutrinos that have no measured charge, threw them into the air , they fall back down like Newtons apple.
Maybe the charge is too weak to detect by device at this time?
Quote from: Thebox on 30/07/2017 18:15:51Thank you , you make a good valued argument against my notion. I am not sure that electromagnetism is the same thing as charge, but in light of your statement about the Neutrino not being massless as given the need for more thinking .Just for the record, I used to have pretty much the same idea as you do many years ago (that gravity is a result of electric charge). QuoteSo you are saying to me if I had a handful of neutrinos that have no measured charge, threw them into the air , they fall back down like Newtons apple.Assuming you could somehow hold and throw them, and that they wouldn't reach escape velocity in the process, yes.QuoteMaybe the charge is too weak to detect by device at this time?If neutrinos did have any amount of electric charge, then they would violate conservation of electric charge in certain processes such as beta decay.Another thought: how do strong gravitational fields bend light in your hypothesis? Electromagnetic fields do not bend light the way that gravity does.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/07/2017 21:02:11Quote from: Thebox on 30/07/2017 17:53:22 Made up things should not come into the thinking. Well stop making stuff up then."Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass,"The idea that a rock has charge is a thing you have made up."Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge? "Is another This "The electron can't have mass and charge," is not only made up but factually wrong.You made this up too."Because charge is dynamic. " And so on.A rock has electrons and protons, electrons and protons have charge, but A+B=NI do not make stuff up, you are just not understanding it if you think it is made up.
Quote from: Thebox on 30/07/2017 17:53:22 Made up things should not come into the thinking. Well stop making stuff up then."Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass,"The idea that a rock has charge is a thing you have made up."Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge? "Is another This "The electron can't have mass and charge," is not only made up but factually wrong.You made this up too."Because charge is dynamic. " And so on.
Made up things should not come into the thinking.
Quote from: Thebox on 30/07/2017 21:12:27Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/07/2017 21:02:11Quote from: Thebox on 30/07/2017 17:53:22 Made up things should not come into the thinking. Well stop making stuff up then."Light is massless and has no charge unlike a rock that has charge and mass,"The idea that a rock has charge is a thing you have made up."Coulumb's law also uses Newtons, are you sure the mass of the object is not newtons of force being applied by the charge? "Is another This "The electron can't have mass and charge," is not only made up but factually wrong.You made this up too."Because charge is dynamic. " And so on.A rock has electrons and protons, electrons and protons have charge, but A+B=NI do not make stuff up, you are just not understanding it if you think it is made up. A rock still has no charge."you are just not understanding it "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
atomic charge
Quote from: Thebox on 31/07/2017 22:21:04 atomic chargeThat's another made-up thing.
You also need to understand that charges can cancel out.
I can not explain everything, I am not a ''god''
Can I ask at what stage, what thing, made you give up on the charge idea?
Is electrical charge the same as atomic charge would be my question?
A gravity field that bends light would be a charged field opposing ''charge'' in my opinion.
Quote from: Thebox on 31/07/2017 21:10:58I can not explain everything, I am not a ''god''I don't expect you to know everything, but if a hypothesis is unable to explain a particular aspect of a phenomenon, that's a good sign that the hypothesis is wrong.QuoteCan I ask at what stage, what thing, made you give up on the charge idea?I can't recall exactly (as it was a long time ago), but I think neutrinos played a big part in it (as well as the fact that fundamental particles with identical charge, such as electrons and muons, can have greatly difference masses).QuoteIs electrical charge the same as atomic charge would be my question?You mean the electric charge of an atomic nucleus? Yes.QuoteA gravity field that bends light would be a charged field opposing ''charge'' in my opinion.I'm not sure I understand this. What charge do photons have that can be opposed in the first place? Do you have any research showing light bending in strong electromagnetic fields?
I should hope electrons and protons do have different mass or my idea fails.
A proton with a greater mass would be an Cation for example. A Cation has greater charge than a proton.
If the electron has more mass, it is more of an anion.
Maybe Photons have both charges q1+q2=N
Maybe Photons are not even real, I have found no evidence in all my ''research'', a Photon is seemingly imaginable but not factual.
added- ''mumble mode'': Something to with water bending by electrostatic forces, the light does not bend , the water does. Gravitational lensing not being light bending but the light defining a shape. added- Ok, back out of deep thought, yes , that is the answer, gravitational curvature of light is not the curvature of the light, the light is just defining the shape of the curve. Meaning that if light reflects off a sphere, the sphere is the shape , the light does not shape.
the charge is directly proportional to the mass?
Quote from: Thebox on 01/08/2017 16:50:58I should hope electrons and protons do have different mass or my idea fails.Protons and electrons have identical charge (both net and gross) and thus should have identical mass if gravity is caused by charge. They do not. A rock has a net charge of zero, but it has a very large gross charge (but the positives and negatives cancel each other out). This is not true for electrons and protons, which have their net charges equal to their gross charges. You therefore cannot blame the proton's greater mass on having some greater gross charge than an electron does.QuoteA proton with a greater mass would be an Cation for example. A Cation has greater charge than a proton.A cation is a positively charge ion, not a proton "with a greater mass". They also don't necessarily have greater charge than a proton, as a lithium cation also has a +1 charge (equal to a proton). A cation has greater gross charge than a proton (since it has more charged particles in it), but its net charge can be the same. If net charge is what causes mass, then protons should have mass while neutrons should be massless. If gross charge determines mass instead, then protons and electrons should be equal in mass. Neither is the case.QuoteIf the electron has more mass, it is more of an anion.Again, no. Anions are negatively-charged ions. Electrons by themselves are not anions, as anions have atomic nuclei.QuoteMaybe Photons have both charges q1+q2=NIf that was the case, then they would be neither attracted towards nor repelled away from electric fields. This still means that gravitational fields cannot be electric fields because photons are attracted to gravitational fields but not electric fields.QuoteMaybe Photons are not even real, I have found no evidence in all my ''research'', a Photon is seemingly imaginable but not factual.The existence of photons explains the photoelectric effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect and why there is not an ultraviolet catastrophe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe. Individual photons can be detected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting Even if it was somehow true that photons did not exist, light itself most certainly does and it also most certainly is attracted by gravitational fields without being attracted by electromagnetic fields. Therefore, denying the existence of photons does not solve your problem.Quoteadded- ''mumble mode'': Something to with water bending by electrostatic forces, the light does not bend , the water does. Gravitational lensing not being light bending but the light defining a shape. added- Ok, back out of deep thought, yes , that is the answer, gravitational curvature of light is not the curvature of the light, the light is just defining the shape of the curve. Meaning that if light reflects off a sphere, the sphere is the shape , the light does not shape.And how, exactly, do electromagnetic fields cause this "curve"? Why haven't we been able to curve light in the lab with electromagnetic fields if it is indeed able to do so?
Quote from: TheBoxthe charge is directly proportional to the mass?I think what you mean is "If you add up the positive and negative charges in a piece matter (eg positive protons + negative electrons, ignoring the signs), the mass of the matter will be proportional to the total charge"?
I think you may of misunderstood me a bit there. An Ion is an atom with a net charge, if the Ion is more positively charged, we call this a Cation. However what you have misunderstood here by my poor wording, the gain of positive charge is gained by the Proton. i.e A Proton that shows a net charge is Cation, the electron part of the atom is still negative in charge and still an electron. In the vice versus an atom that becomes more negative charged is still an ion, but now an anion. The electron gains more charge and is is called an anion, the proton in this situation is still a proton. Hopefully now you understand what I meant.
Consider Hydrogen and Carbon:- Hydrogen has 1 proton + 1 electron = 2 charges. It's mass is 1.008 g/mol, due to a mass of 1 proton + 1 electron.- Carbon has 6 protons + 6 electrons = 12 charges. It's mass is 12.011 g/mol, due to a mass of 6 protons + 6 electrons + 6 (or 7) neutrons
Quote from: Thebox on 01/08/2017 23:30:30I think you may of misunderstood me a bit there. An Ion is an atom with a net charge, if the Ion is more positively charged, we call this a Cation. However what you have misunderstood here by my poor wording, the gain of positive charge is gained by the Proton. i.e A Proton that shows a net charge is Cation, the electron part of the atom is still negative in charge and still an electron. In the vice versus an atom that becomes more negative charged is still an ion, but now an anion. The electron gains more charge and is is called an anion, the proton in this situation is still a proton. Hopefully now you understand what I meant. Electrons and protons do not gain or lose charge when an atom is ionized. What you have is an excess or depletion of electrons. The charge on individual protons and electrons is completely unaffected.What evan_au said about hydrogen and carbon is true: the ratio of charge to mass is different for a carbon atom than it is for a hydrogen atom. Another shot against your hypothesis.
The figures of mass you posted look close in consideration to the multiple.
the mass of the matter will be proportional to the total charge"?
total force of charge