0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In what way does my notion contradict known science? When the very science I am using is known science!
Q1 and q2 are obviously opposite charges . q1 even in words is obviously not likewise to q2.
Then they are attracted to each other.
So the opposite charges of each object are attracted to each other which was the expected answer. So if by the power of thought I could remove the inertia reference frame leaving just the two objects, would my objects that were relatively in inertia rest, gain motion towards each other closing the small gap?
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 00:42:11So the opposite charges of each object are attracted to each other which was the expected answer. So if by the power of thought I could remove the inertia reference frame leaving just the two objects, would my objects that were relatively in inertia rest, gain motion towards each other closing the small gap?If the two objects are to be defined as being at rest relative to each other, they cannot simultaneously be accelerating towards each other. There is no answer.
They were defined to be at relative rest when we had the inertia rest frame of the Earth. If we removed the Earth and rest inertia , the objects gain relative motion towards each other by their attractive charge properties. There is nothing stopping the attraction right? (We have removed inertia and friction)
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 00:48:43They were defined to be at relative rest when we had the inertia rest frame of the Earth. If we removed the Earth and rest inertia , the objects gain relative motion towards each other by their attractive charge properties. There is nothing stopping the attraction right? (We have removed inertia and friction)By removing the inertia, you have stepped out of known reality. There is no telling what would happen.
Well it seems quite logical that the objects will ''fall'' to each other.
I was hoping you was going to say the likewise charge properties would create a radius where the net force of charges was 0 stopping the collision of objects. Is this not the reality of what would happen?
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 00:59:15Well it seems quite logical that the objects will ''fall'' to each other. In the real world, yes. In "no inertia land", who knows?QuoteI was hoping you was going to say the likewise charge properties would create a radius where the net force of charges was 0 stopping the collision of objects. Is this not the reality of what would happen?I don't know why you think I would have said something like that, because that sure isn't how I understand electromagnetic attraction to work (especially not when you magically remove inertia).
You are failing to recognise the inertia that the two objects give/have. i.e a speck of dust on the object has inertia.
But to bring this more into a reality situation, the two objects in my mind were actually just the Earth and the Sun. In which technically you have agreed the opposite charges of the Sun and Earth are attracted to each other.
I suggest radius r with a net force of 0 is the radius set by likewise charges.I also suggest that the mass of an object is actually 1/2 mass because F² of two bodies creating twice the mass the object actually has.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 01:09:38You are failing to recognise the inertia that the two objects give/have. i.e a speck of dust on the object has inertia.You're the one removing the inertia, not me.QuoteBut to bring this more into a reality situation, the two objects in my mind were actually just the Earth and the Sun. In which technically you have agreed the opposite charges of the Sun and Earth are attracted to each other.Given that the Sun and Earth do not have opposite electric charges, I have done no such thing. The net charges on each body are roughly zero.QuoteI suggest radius r with a net force of 0 is the radius set by likewise charges.I also suggest that the mass of an object is actually 1/2 mass because F² of two bodies creating twice the mass the object actually has. Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
My two original objects have a net charge of 0 also, but you was happy to accept that the opposite charges are still attracted to each other.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 01:22:59My two original objects have a net charge of 0 also, but you was happy to accept that the opposite charges are still attracted to each other.Any attraction an electron in the Sun would have to a proton in the Earth would be negated by the repulsion that a proton in the Earth would feel from a proton in the Sun. There is no net attraction.
Exactly , exactly the same as there is no net attraction force of gravity of the sun and earth apply on each other. net F=0
The radius apart set by the likewise charge repulsive properties stopping gravitational contraction between bodies. Gravity having a duality in the sense of opposites attract and likewise repulses but always observed as N.
All the mechanics of charge and mass seem to comparable to be different things in my opinion.
I also consider because the earths orbit is not circular , that N is dynamic but will always measure N.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 01:37:08Exactly , exactly the same as there is no net attraction force of gravity of the sun and earth apply on each other. net F=0The Earth and Sun are very much attracted towards each other. The Earth is constantly falling "around" the Sun. Maybe you should look up how orbits work. An object in orbit is still falling, it's just that the surface of the primary object being orbited curves away from the falling object at the same rate as the falling object moves around the primary object. Newton's cannonball thought experiment explains this very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonballQuoteThe radius apart set by the likewise charge repulsive properties stopping gravitational contraction between bodies. Gravity having a duality in the sense of opposites attract and likewise repulses but always observed as N.You're talking nonsense. If you half the distance between the Earth and the Sun, you multiply the attraction between opposite charged particle by four, but the repulsion between similarly charged particles also increases by four. There is absolutely no net change in the electromagnetic attraction or repulsion force between the Earth and Sun, regardless of how you change the distances involved because the attractions and repulsions change at the exact same rates and always balance out.QuoteAll the mechanics of charge and mass seem to comparable to be different things in my opinion.Which doesn't make them the same.QuoteI also consider because the earths orbit is not circular , that N is dynamic but will always measure N.It's orbit is an ellipse.
I should hope not because then N would not always measure N.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 01:53:14I should hope not because then N would not always measure N.Too bad, because that's exactly how electromagnetism works: attractions and repulsions fall off at the exact same rate (with the square of the distance).
The electrons in the rock are attracted to the protons in the Earth and the protons in the Earth are attracted to the electrons in the rock. However, the electrons in the rock are repelled by the electrons in the Earth and the protons in the rock are repelled by the protons in the Earth. Since the attractions and repulsions cancel out, your model predicts that the Earth should neither attract nor repel the rock (regardless of the distance) and therefore it should not fall if I let go of it. This represents a falsification of your model because it does not match reality.
What is an N-field? Something you made up? If it's merely an electromagnetic field, then just call it an electromagnetic field. What do you mean when you say the charge in the Earth's core is dynamic? Something else you made up?
What do you mean when you say the charge in the Earth's core is dynamic?
A N-field would be a field that was a neutral field. i.e q1 + q2 = N
All atoms are this N-field. The solidity of objects are this N-field. N-fields can not merge.So the N-field is a quantum charge field that only ever measures N. i.e no net charge
The core spins inside the ''coil'', the spinning of the magnetic fields of within the coil create charge. The speed of the spin of the core is dynamic , i.e a variable like the rotation of the Earth. So therefore the state of charge is also dynamic.
So the object falls to the center of the earth because that is where the N-field is at its strongest magnitude. A motor is modelled on this. Surrounding each and every planet is an electromotive force that creates orbits. Faraday did not extend his thinking beyond the localised electromotive forces. In example if we were to magnetically or by charge suspend an object in the air. We then only need to add electromotive force to create an orbiting system.
p.s Try to understand that the neutron is actually the N-field , because when two N-fields are attracted F*2=m
By definition, a neutral field does not exert a force. Explain to me with known, accepted scientific knowledge how one object can attract another object if both objects are completely neutral and as such all electric repulsion must be equal to all electric attraction?
This cannot explain why small asteroids without rotating liquid cores can have gravity of their own. The asteroid 1994 CC is less than a kilometer across, yet it has two natural satellites, Beta and Gamma. Such a small object would have completely solidified long ago. The reason that the Earth still has a liquid core is because it is too large for all of the heat created during its formation to have escaped into space by now. Surface-to-volume ratio has a huge impact on the rate that objects cool off.
Spinning magnetic fields don't create charge. Why would you think they do?