Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest39538 on 19/04/2016 09:14:51
-
I really need to discuss this topic, please do not put it in the bin. I ask the question is negative attracted to negative?
What do I mean by negative? I am not sure, some sort of gravitational negative that attracts other gravitational negatives, maybe some sort of mono negative particle. I do not know in certainty.
this negative gains Pe, (potential energy) it is then no longer a negative, almost at an instant after ''birth'' it becomes a charged particle maybe.
There is a certainty in my mind that the negative of me is attracted to the negative of the floor, there is a certainty if I was to add lots of energy to my body I go up in smoke away from negative.
There is a certainty I can't climb up the walls like spider man, there is certainty that the positive of the walls repels the positive of my hands and I can not stick.
Please discuss negatives with me. Please name all the things we already know that are negative.
-
I ask the question is negative attracted to negative?
By definition, no.
-
I really need to discuss this topic, please do not put it in the bin.
Since you're asking a very valid question there'd be no valid reason to put it in the bin.
I ask the question is negative attracted to negative?
If you're talking about charge then negative charge repels negative charge. If you're talking about mass then, theoretically, negative mass repels negative mass.
Regarding the concept of negative mass please see Negative Mass in General Relativity by H. Bondi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 423 – Published 1 July 1957
http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.423
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
-
I really need to discuss this topic, please do not put it in the bin.
It will remain here unless you start to stray into new theories. Your opening post contains statements that many would consider new theories.
I think the problem is that you don't have a good understanding of what is positive or negative so you apply them at random to explain things you do not understand.
For example, the wall is not positive repelling the positive of your hands. These is no repulsive force, there just isn't an attractive force between your hands and the wall which is great enough to stick you against the wall, so gravity pulls you down.
Also there is no negative of you attracted to the negative of the floor. What you are describing is just the plain old attraction of masses - gravity.
It's when you go off on these wild speculations that everyone loses interest and stops discussing with you.
-
Ok, I have read the link provided to Wiki , the other link would not give me access. I have mentioned negative mass from my own thoughts, obviously I was meaning something different I think.
Ok let me presume I know nothing, please explain how any charge can be negative? I don't understand.
-
When you rub ebonite with cat fur, the plastic and the fur both become charged. Now do it with another piece of ebonite and another cat. You will find that the ebonite rods repel each other, as do the cats, but each ebonite rod will attract a cat.
The charge on the cat is called positive, and on the ebonite, negative. That is the official definition.
It turns out that electrons have negative charge, and protons are positive.
-
Ok let me presume I know nothing, please explain how any charge can be negative? I don't understand.
It's all very simple (Note:this is related to Newton's 3rd law).
Suppose have two particles which I'll label A and B. Perhaps they're both electrons, both protons or one electron and one proton. Coulomb's Law, derived from experimentation by Coulomb, shows that the force between any two of those particles is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. The force on particle A due to particle B,
FAB = kqAqB nAB/r2
nAB is a unit vector that points from particle A to particle B = FAB/ |FAB|
Also
FBA = kqAqB nBA/r2
nBA is a unit vector that points from particle A to particle B = FBA/ |FBA|
In order for the directions of the forces to point in the correct direction the signs of the charge on the two particles has to be opposite. The sign convention which determined which charge was positive and which was negative was decided by Benjamin Franklin
http://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/truth.htm
-
Ok let me presume I know nothing, please explain how any charge can be negative? I don't understand.
It boils down to this: The negative sign ends up determining the direction of the force exerted on the object which its interacting with. I'll explain in more detail later today.
-
there is certainty that the positive of the walls repels the positive of my hands and I can not stick.
I would seriously consider where you got these random certainties. Then return them and hope the vendor will give you a refund.
There is positive in the walls, and there is positive in your hands - it lies in the positive charge in the nucleus of the atoms.
But the positive in the walls do not "see" the positive in your hands, because both are screened from each other by the negative electrons which surround the atoms.
You could say that the "negative electrons of the walls repels the negative electrons of my hands and I can not stick".
There is a certainty in my mind that the negative of me is attracted to the negative of the floor
On the contrary, it would be better to say "the negative electrons of me are repelled by the negative electrons of the floor". That is why gravity does not pull you through the floor, collapsing you and the Earth into a black hole.
Please discuss negatives with me. Please name all the things we already know that are negative.
A negative is something where, when you add an equal amount of positive, you end up with zero.
So if you have a $1,000,000 mortgage, and you add $1,000,000: you end up with zero. So a mortgage is negative money in your finances.
One of the terminals of a battery is marked negative; it has an excess of electrons. The other terminal is marked positive; it has an equal deficit of electrons. Add them together by connecting them with a wire, and you end up with zero charge.
About 1 in 10,000,000 water molecules spontaneously breaks into OH- and H+ ions. There are equal quantities of + and -, so the overall charge is zero.
Sometimes what is negative depends on your reference point, because measurement only makes sense with respect to a reference.
- Sometimes the selection of a reference point can be somewhat arbitrary (eg Earth or Pluto).
- You may be 1km North of the center of town. If you walk 1km south, your "Northerlyness" is zero; walking south is a negative distance.
- A person standing on the Earth can be considered to have negative potential energy. By putting them in a rocket and applying energy, you can put them out of Earth orbit, giving them zero potential energy.
- Almost anything countable can be considered to have a negative, by selecting your reference point appropriately.
Perhaps it would be instructive in your understanding of negatives for you to consider those cases where there is no known negative, like mass, kinetic energy or temperature in degrees Kelvin?
-
Please discuss negatives with me. Please name all the things we already know that are negative.
It wasn't clear to me what you were asking when you wrote this. Evan gave you the definition of what a negative number is. If you'd like more details then please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_number
However when you asked us to name "all" things that we know which are represented by negative numbers then you're asking way too much of us. I'll give you a short list to show you how numerous such a list would be.
1) Negative charge
2) Topographical features of the earth’s surface are given a height above sea level, which can be negative
3) Negative energy; negative potential energy, negative total energy, negative mass-energy
Note: I recall that someone in this forum claimed that there is no such thing as negative energy. Was that you or was it Farsight?
4) Negative mass
5) Negative Gaussian curvature
6) Negative time reading (t = -5 s = the moment 3 seconds before a clock was set to read zero)
7) Negative values of a coordinate in a coordinate system
8) Negative temperature
9) Negative account balance
10) Negative latitude and longitude
11) Negative voltage
-
A negative is something where, when you add an equal amount of positive, you end up with zero.
Thank you all there is a lot to take in their, I will have to read it several times over before I can ask questions. Just to confirm something related to the above statement .
If I start with -14.6 billion years and add +14.6 billion years, I get 0?
-
Ok let me presume I know nothing, please explain how any charge can be negative? I don't understand.
It's all very simple (Note:this is related to Newton's 3rd law).
Suppose have two particles which I'll label A and B. Perhaps they're both electrons, both protons or one electron and one proton. Coulomb's Law, derived from experimentation by Coulomb, shows that the force between any two of those particles is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. The force on particle A due to particle B,
FAB = kqAqB nAB/r2
nAB is a unit vector that points from particle A to particle B = FAB/ |FAB|
Also
FBA = kqAqB nBA/r2
nBA is a unit vector that points from particle A to particle B = FBA/ |FBA|
In order for the directions of the forces to point in the correct direction the signs of the charge on the two particles has to be opposite. The sign convention which determined which charge was positive and which was negative was decided by Benjamin Franklin
http://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/truth.htm
What is K ? I think I can read that formula except what K is
-
If I start with -14.6 billion years and add +14.6 billion years, I get 0?
Yes, you might do an addition like this if you define "the Sun turning into a white dwarf" as your zero reference point.
Bear in mind that how you measure time depends very much on your frame of reference, and maintaining a constant frame of reference over very long periods of time is a challenge!
-
What is K ? I think I can read that formula except what K is
k is known as Coulomb's constant. It's defined in terms of the permittivity of free space = epsilon0.
k = 1/(4*pi*epsilon0)
For detail please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
-
What is K ? I think I can read that formula except what K is
k is known as Coulomb's constant. It's defined in terms of the permittivity of free space = epsilon0.
k = 1/(4*pi*epsilon0)
For detail please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Thank you for explaining k Pete.
So does
FAB=ma if A is the Earth and B is an object at rest mass in the inertial reference frame of the Earth?
-
Thank you for explaining k Pete.
You're quite welcome.
So does
FAB=ma ...
The law F = ma determines how a particle of mass m will respond to a force F. BTW - You left out the subscripts on the right hand side.
if A is the Earth and B is an object at rest mass in the inertial reference frame of the Earth?
The subscript notation is tricky. The first subscript "A" refers to the body that causes the force and "B" is the body that reacts to the force. Therefore FAB is the force on B due to A. So in this case you got it right with the exception that you left out the subscripts on m and a.
I suggest that you take a look over the page I created on the Laws of Electrodynamics at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/laws_of_electrodynamics.htm
-
Thank you for explaining k Pete.
You're quite welcome.
So does
FAB=ma ...
The law F = ma determines how a particle of mass m will respond to a force F. BTW - You left out the subscripts on the right hand side.
if A is the Earth and B is an object at rest mass in the inertial reference frame of the Earth?
The subscript notation is tricky. The first subscript "A" refers to the body that causes the force and "B" is the body that reacts to the force. Therefore FAB is the force on B due to A. So in this case you got it right with the exception that you left out the subscripts on m and a.
I suggest that you take a look over the page I created on the Laws of Electrodynamics at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/laws_of_electrodynamics.htm
By subscripts , do you mean the vector ng?
FAB=manGB?
Like that?
And thank you for a link , I have read so far and have a question.
''When either a rubber rod or a glass rod is rubbed with a particular material it will become “electrified” in that it will attract small bits of paper or cloth. ''
If we rub a balloons surface it creates charge which is electrons, which are negative in charge?
If we rubbed a second balloon creating like wise charge , the balloons repel each other a positive direction?
Why is the electron stated a negative when it does things positive? I heard somewhere that the Proton and Electron were wrongly labelled the wrong way around when talking charges and the Electron is really the positive?
-
If we rub a balloons surface it creates charge which is electrons, which are negative in charge?
If we rubbed a second balloon creating like wise charge , the balloons repel each other a positive direction?
If the 2 balloons are free to move they will repel each other. One goes one direction the other the opposite direction. You might say one goes positive direction the other negative. Which direction you call positive or negative doesn't matter.
Why is the electron stated a negative when it does things positive?
Convention. Early on folks had to call them one or the other and just chose. It doesn't matter which way round as long as everyone - including you - uses the same convention. There is no absolute positive or negative in this case.
I heard somewhere that the Proton and Electron were wrongly labelled the wrong way around when talking charges and the Electron is really the positive?
This is a myth brought about because some people get confused between electron flow and charge flow. Charge can be negative or positive, electrons just negative.
PS, thank you for sticking to the topic
-
electrons just negative.
PS, thank you for sticking to the topic
So you are saying that electrons are just negative, negative what if not charge?
-
So you are saying that electrons are just negative, negative what if not charge?
Yes negative charge.
What I am saying is that you can have positive or negative charges, but electrons only have negative charge.
-
So you are saying that electrons are just negative, negative what if not charge?
Yes negative charge.
What I am saying is that you can have positive or negative charges, but electrons only have negative charge.
Ok, so if the electron is a negative charge then that makes the proton a positive charge?
-
So you are saying that electrons are just negative, negative what if not charge?
Yes negative charge.
What I am saying is that you can have positive or negative charges, but electrons only have negative charge.
Ok, so if the electron is a negative charge then that makes the proton a positive charge?
Correct. We can determine experimentally that protons and electrons have opposite charge, so if we define the electron as having negative charge (as is the current convention) then proton must have positive charge.
-
Correct. We can determine experimentally that protons and electrons have opposite charge, so if we define the electron as having negative charge (as is the current convention) then proton must have positive charge.
Ok , and likewise charges repel?
opposite charges attract?
The electrons of the Earth are attracted to the Protons of the Sun?
The electrons of the Sun are attracted to the Protons of the Earth?
The electrons of the sun repel the electrons of the earth?
The Protons of the Sun repel the protons of the earth?
would
FG=nAB=(-=+m1)=(-=+m2)=0?
-
Correct. We can determine experimentally that protons and electrons have opposite charge, so if we define the electron as having negative charge (as is the current convention) then proton must have positive charge.
Ok , and likewise charges repel?
opposite charges attract?
The electrons of the Earth are attracted to the Protons of the Sun?
The electrons of the Sun are attracted to the Protons of the Earth?
The electrons of the sun repel the electrons of the earth?
The Protons of the Sun repel the protons of the earth?
Yes to all.
-
Correct. We can determine experimentally that protons and electrons have opposite charge, so if we define the electron as having negative charge (as is the current convention) then proton must have positive charge.
Ok , and likewise charges repel?
opposite charges attract?
The electrons of the Earth are attracted to the Protons of the Sun?
The electrons of the Sun are attracted to the Protons of the Earth?
The electrons of the sun repel the electrons of the earth?
The Protons of the Sun repel the protons of the earth?
Yes to all.
would
FG=nAB=(-=+m1)=(-=+m2)=0?
-
So you are saying that electrons are just negative, negative what if not charge?
Your grammar here makes your question unclear. But electrons are not charge. They have charge.
-
So you are saying that electrons are just negative, negative what if not charge?
Your grammar here makes your question unclear. But electrons are not charge. They have charge.
So by the word charge, you actually mean a readout of some description relating to -1 and +1?
-
So by the word charge, you actually mean a readout of some description relating to -1 and +1?
Yes a measurement.
For the electron it is approximately −1.602×10-19 Coulombs. For convenience this is usually referred to as an electric charge of -1e.
Edit: although I have said electric charge of -1e, the e is actually the unit/symbol for electric charge.
So the proton has a charge of +1e or +1.602×10-19 Coulombs.
-
The electrons of the Earth are attracted to the Protons of the Sun?
The electrons of the Sun are attracted to the Protons of the Earth? etc
Because there is roughly equal numbers of electrons and protons in the Sun (and in the Earth), these astronomical bodies are electrically neutral.
So unless you are really close to an electrically neutral object (like < a few atom-widths away), there is no electrical attraction.
Since the Earth and the Sun are not this close, you could say that the electrons in the Sun do not feel a force from the protons of the Earth (or vice versa), because both are shielded by their local electrons and protons.
So here is another rule for you to learn about electric fields: Neutral does not attract or repel neutral.
But of course, the Sun and the Earth both have a gravitational field, and gravitational fields always attract.
(We may need to update this latter rule if and when someone comes up with some negative mass for us to test! The tests are already underway with antimatter.)
I have said electric charge of -1e, the e is actually the unit/symbol for electric charge.
So the proton has a charge of +1e or +1.602×10-19 Coulombs.
And a neutral object has a charge of 0e (for practical purposes, you can extend the definition of "electrically neutral" to include objects which have a charge that is very small compared to the number of atoms, like <1e per 1026 atoms).
-
So by the word charge, you actually mean a readout of some description relating to -1 and +1?
Yes a measurement.
For the electron it is approximately −1.602×10-19 Coulombs. For convenience this is usually referred to as an electric charge of -1e.
Edit: although I have said electric charge of -1e, the e is actually the unit/symbol for electric charge.
So the proton has a charge of +1e or +1.602×10-19 Coulombs.
Is it just me.....
So if I have a Proton that becomes charged and becomes lets say +5e, are you saying that when it loses it's charge and returns to +1e it has not become a more negative than it's state at +5e?
added - so is 0e attracted to 0e? what I dont understand is if you know all the components of something, then obvious one of those components is what does something, the component being the mechanism to the something, a resistor resists for example. A proton must have a capacitance and so on.
So when science tells me they dont know the mechanism to gravity, I don't believe them , they have all the components, so which component is gravity?
You do know you have all the information.
-
Is it just me.....
So if I have a Proton that becomes charged and becomes lets say +5e, are you saying that when it loses it's charge and returns to +1e it has not become a more negative than it's state at +5e?
Maybe it's just you....
A proton has a charge of +1e. It cannot have a charge of +5, neither does it lose its charge, and it cannot be negative. Just +1 and only +1.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is a pseudoscientist.
added - so is 0e attracted to 0e? what I dont understand is if you know all the components of something, then obvious one of those components is what does something, the component being the mechanism to the something, a resistor resists for example. A proton must have a capacitance and so on.
0e is not attracted to 0e, in other words there is no charge attraction between objects which have 0 charge.
Capacitance relates to the ability of an object to be charged and describes the voltage charge relationship for that object, just as resistance describes the voltage current relationship. Neither has anything to do with a proton.
Neither has capacitance or charge anything to do with gravity.
-
Neither has capacitance or charge anything to do with gravity.
I never said it did.
So in metal expansion, if the proton is not gaining e and neither is the electron, what is expanding exactly?
does +1e not equal >4/3 pi r³?
Is the strong nuclear force attracted to itself to cause contraction when the metal cools?
-
Neither has capacitance or charge anything to do with gravity.
I never said it did.
Yes you did:
Gravity doe's not exist, all things are buoyant relative to each other by the combination of positive and negative charge .
So in metal expansion, if the proton is not gaining e and neither is the electron, what is expanding exactly?
Distance between atoms. Heat causes the atoms to vibrate more and they need extra space to do it in.
does +1e not equal >4/3 pi r³?
No. Why on earth should it?
Is the strong nuclear force attracted to itself to cause contraction when the metal cools?
Nothing to do with strong nuclear force, that is to do with holding protons and neutrons together.
-
Is the strong nuclear force attracted to itself to cause contraction when the metal cools?
Nothing to do with strong nuclear force, that is to do with holding protons and neutrons together.
The strong nuclear force has a range which is about the diameter of a proton or neutron, ie about 2 fm.
It's effect is isolated to within the nucleus of the atom. For example, iron 56, with its 26 protons and 30 neutrons, has a diameter of about 4 proton diameters.
But the nucleus of the atom is a tiny dot compared to the size of an atom. Iron has an atomic diameter of 250 pm = 250,000 fm.
The strong nuclear force cannot affect the nucleus of an adjacent atom - it doesn't have the range. But the cloud of electrons around an atom can affect the cloud of electrons around an adjacent atom.
So the chemical, electrical, mechanical, optical and thermal properties of an atom are determined by the properties of the electrons around the atom. How many electrons are present around an atom is affected by the electrical charge on the nucleus, but not the strong nuclear force.
-
Is the strong nuclear force attracted to itself to cause contraction when the metal cools?
Nothing to do with strong nuclear force, that is to do with holding protons and neutrons together.
The strong nuclear force has a range which is about the diameter of a proton or neutron, ie about 2 fm.
It's effect is isolated to within the nucleus of the atom. For example, iron 56, with its 26 protons and 30 neutrons, has a diameter of about 4 proton diameters.
But the nucleus of the atom is a tiny dot compared to the size of an atom. Iron has an atomic diameter of 250 pm = 250,000 fm.
The strong nuclear force cannot affect the nucleus of an adjacent atom - it doesn't have the range. But the cloud of electrons around an atom can affect the cloud of electrons around an adjacent atom.
So the chemical, electrical, mechanical, optical and thermal properties of an atom are determined by the properties of the electrons around the atom. How many electrons are present around an atom is affected by the electrical charge on the nucleus, but not the strong nuclear force.
My problem is this Evan, science says that an atom is made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons and space, science also explains the strong nuclear force, positive protons, negative electrons, neutral neutron.
I ask science what is the mechanism of gravity?
Science says we don't know.
I say yes you do, If I take hot water and coffee and milk and sugar, I have a cup of coffee and I know all the ingredients. Science has al the ingredients, so one of them ingredients or a combination of those ingredients is the mechanism of gravity.
You know what is inside the box so you know something in that box is attractive, so what in that box is attractive?
electrons are attracted to protons and like wise charges repel, you have the answers in my opinion but for some reason are just ruling it out.
You do know, just think about the ingredients and which ingredient does what.
-
That extra ingredient is the nuclear magnetic effect that spins the electron around the balanced nucleas
-
That extra ingredient is the nuclear magnetic effect that spins the electron around the balanced nucleas
Scratches head, hmmmm, I have no idea what that is but it sounds interesting, is what you mention a sort of mono-pole?
-
electrons are attracted to protons and like wise charges repel, you have the answers in my opinion but for some reason are just ruling it out.
Reading between the lines, are you saying that the Earth is attracted to the Sun because Earth and Sun have opposite electric charges?
- This implies that all the other planets (which are also attracted to the Sun) have the same charge as the Earth.
- The orbits of all the planets affect each other; but how do you explain that the planets are attracted to each other if they have the same charge (and not repelled)?
- How do you explain that you are attracted to the Earth (which implies an opposite charge), and yet you aren't electrocuted every time you take a step?
- The Earth, Sun, Planets and your good self are all electrically neutral. As previously advised, electrically neutral objects neither attract nor repel.
So it is not electric charge that is holding together the Solar System and life on Earth.
I ask science what is the mechanism of gravity?
Science says we don't know.
You know what is inside the box so you know something in that box is attractive, so what in that box is attractive?
Isaac Newton worked this out well before electrical charge or electrical & magnetic forces had been tamed and measured in the laboratory by the likes of Michael Faraday.
The thing that causes gravity is Mass.
The thing that carries electromagnetic forces is called the photon.
By analogy, the thing that carries gravitational forces has been dubbed the graviton.
-
Reading between the lines, are you saying that the Earth is attracted to the Sun because Earth and Sun have opposite electric charges?
That would be theory if I suggested that and moved from this section. The Earth and Sun has opposite charges but the Earth and Sun also has likewise charge, I think Neutral is attracted to neutral by the combination of charges. Ask yourself neutral to what exactly?
Neutral has push and pull, expanding things show us this. Neutral is relative to radius F=0 , neutral is not really neutral in my opinion it is an equilibrium of state or as you may put it rest mass.
This implies that all the other planets (which are also attracted to the Sun) have the same charge as the Earth.
made of the same stuff
The thing that causes gravity is Mass.
That is not accurate, mass is a measurement on a set of scales, I do not think words attract each other. Yes it is said mass is attracted to mass, however it is undetermined what mass is , if you want to define that mass is the summation value of all charges then I would agree with you .
The thing that carries electromagnetic forces is called the photon.
By analogy, the thing that carries gravitational forces has been dubbed the graviton.
It's interwoven, you do detect it but in other ways in my opinion, you detect the waves as neutral, neutral waves don't affect neutral waves, no net charge in space, it is neutral , a combination of - and + that is at equilibrium state. (just an opinion not a theory)
Relative to space , it is space that is neutral and all things that occupy space are minus or plus = radius.
Extending Newton's third law, the sun pushes back and the earth pushes the sun back but at the same time the earth is attracted to the sun and the sun is attracted to earth, that is why over in new theories I mentioned electrodynamic ''buoyancy'', I think you have all your answers , electrons of the earth must be attracted to the protons of the sun and vice versus, and the neutral medium of space is the carrier of the neutral signal, only a massive upset in the system such as a black hole collapsing could cause the neutral space to ripple and allowing a LIGO detection by detecting the emitted ripple from the hole that was greater than the neutral whole of space. The space time-continuum disrupted by a ''graviton'' burst of the black hole.