0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 20/09/2017 22:58:42Ok, 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/09/2017 01:20:41Ok, 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?
Is one electron equal to one negative charge magnitude? Is one Proton equal to one positive charge magnitude?
Quote from: Thebox on 21/09/2017 08:59:02Anti -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.QuoteIs 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.
am and have been considering that if the amount of charge in an object is directly proportional to its mass.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/09/2017 01:20:41 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.
you must be able to explain what is mass?
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.
So if you declare it isn't then you must be able to explain what is mass?
Quote from: Thebox on 21/09/2017 18:23:29Well 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.Quote from: Thebox on 21/09/2017 21:20:51So 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.
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?
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
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 00:11:05Well 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.QuoteIt 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.QuoteEinstein 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.QuoteLet 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.