[guest39538]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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.

[guest39538]

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


F_G=n_AB=(-=+_m1)=(-=+_m2)=0?

[chiralSPO]

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.

[guest39538]

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


F_G=n_AB=(-=+_m1)=(-=+_m2)=0?

[PmbPhy]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Colin2B]

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.

[evan_au]

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).

[guest39538]

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.

[Colin2B]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Colin2B]

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.

[evan_au]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[acsinuk]

That extra ingredient is the nuclear magnetic effect that spins the electron around the balanced nucleas

[guest39538]

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?

[evan_au]

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.

[guest39538]

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.