0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For space flow
Quote from: Thebox on 02/02/2016 09:47:17For space flowWhy?
Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?
Quote from: Thebox on 02/02/2016 10:38:40Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?Hahaha...I can relate to almost nothing in your original post. As to the above statement;It would depend on what the statement is applied to. It can be said that positive thoughts attract positive thoughts, and negative thoughts likewise can attract more negative thoughts. Without defining what the statement is to be applied to it is too general to be always true. So no. As stated I can not agree with it.
bedtime for me tonight, but I'll play for as long as it makes sense to me.Yes I agree that where magnetic fields are concerned, opposite polarities attract, and like polarities repel.
Also this is true for electrical fields?
I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.I'll try and look into it.
Quote from: Space Flow on 03/02/2016 02:20:36I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.I'll try and look into it.OK this what was nagging me;Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal and has to be applied with situation properly defined. Magnetic and electrical fields are geometry sensitive and a force at right angles can end up being applied which is neither attractive nor repulsive.I have to even withdraw my earlier consent that magnetic fields behave in the manner of your statement.It is too much of a generalisation.The statement would have to be presented with all extenuating circumstances involved before an analysis of its validity can properly be made.It is in other words situation sensitive.
I think the easiest thing to consider may be air, I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)Do we agree?
Quote from: Thebox on 03/02/2016 09:40:04I think the easiest thing to consider may be air, I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)Do we agree?Again too general. Air in a sealed space will increase in temp and pressure but will not change in density. You will find that generalisations are always difficult. The only things that I have found to be constants, are the defined constants that make our description of nature work. Everything else is relative. It is situation dependent and should be presented with the specific situation that it is being applied to. Otherwise we fall into the trap of belief systems. Can you see why none of your statements can be applied to all possible situations?You change the situation and you can change the validity of the statement.So unfortunately we have not reached consensus on anything yet. But you are trying to think about the obstacles I am putting in your way, so to me that is movement in the right direction.
OK this what was nagging me;Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal
Quote from: Space Flow on 03 February 2016, 14:05:19OK this what was nagging me;Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.
These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok, Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?
Quote from: Colin2B on 03/02/2016 19:13:53Quote from: Space Flow on 03 February 2016, 14:05:19OK this what was nagging me;Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.Colin you are of course right. I only offered it up to show that the statement that like fields are Geometrically sensitive, and the generalisation that opposites attract and like repel is not general and has to be made within the context that it is applied to.Quote from: Thebox on 03/02/2016 16:37:27These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok, Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?Just remember that you invited this interchange.I have been called annally retentive all my life, and take a certain amount of pride in the title.For me it has always been and always will be about the attention to detail.Those are the rules I play by.And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...Next...
Yes. If their charge is all that is taken into consideration.
Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ? Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?
Quote from: Thebox on 03/02/2016 21:49:01Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ? Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?First your single object that has a positive charge. Lets look at the iconic and original positive charge.The first stage of complexity of fundamental particles that at the moment we are aware off is when 3 Quarks get together in the right combination to form a neutron.The Quarks are seen to have partial charge so that 3 together make up a balanced system of equal positive and negative potential (neutral).Now a neutron on its own is no fun and it gets bored so after a short amount of time it organises its internal balance so that it can separate part of the electroweak force that is its inheritance from the Quark combination, and so form polarity. There is now an imbalance. A negative part of the Electroweak force is now separate from what was a neutral system, leaving behind a positive proton and a separate negative electron. Together they are the basis of the EM force.Now we can apply an amount of energy to this balanced EM system and knock that electron out of that orbital, leaving behind your positive charge in the form of that proton.What holds that charge in place? Nothing. Nothing has to as there is nowhere it can go and no way it can be separated from that proton.It exists only because it doesn't have the electron around to balance it. As long as that situation continues to exist that proton will remain in the unbalanced state that we call a +ion.Seeing as we have never managed to show proton decay this situation can last for the lifetime of the Universe. Off course it is more likely that at some stage it will manage to couple to another electron and so balance itself again.So no I do not agree that a positive charge is held in place by a negative. It exists because of the absence of a negative.No I do not agree that the positive charge can disperse without the presence of a negative. There exists no mechanism by which this can be achieved.And I certainly don't understand where you could possibly get such a concept that a positive charge has any quality like its own repulsiveness. It will repel other positive charges as we agreed. Not itself.