martillo

They are called "Cl-" and "Na+" in Chemistry what only means that "Cl-" is twice more negative than "Na+" because the difference in the charge between both is +1 - (-1) = 2. Actually means that "Cl-" has two more electrons than "Na+". The ballon acquires more electrons right but becomes just more negative than it previously was . The total quantity of charge of the balloon depends on the quantity of its atoms that acquired one or more electrons.

No material can have a net negative charge. Negative charges are produced by electrons and they can only exist in the atomic structure attracted by the positive nucleus of the atoms. The maximum number of electrons that any material can have is that which neutralizes the positive charges of the nucleus. More electrons than this can only be free electrons and they would repel each other out of the material. Then any material can only be neutral or positive charged. Negative ions also don't actually exist. Only more or less positive ions exist.

Here's an extract of a manuscript I developed towards a new theory in Physics which treat the confusing concept of electrical "ground". Hope it could help to clarify some things: Here we must be careful in what Ground means. We should consider first that: No material can have a net negative charge. Negative charges are produced by electrons and they can only exist in the atomic structure attracted by the positive nucleus of the atoms. The maximum number of electrons that any material can have is that which neutralizes the positive charges of the nucleus. More electrons than this can only be free electrons and they would repel each other out of the material. Then any material can only be neutral or positive charged. Our ambient is radiated mainly by the sun and this radiation has a certain spectrum of photons. The sun radiation is vital because it maintains an ambient temperature. At ambient temperature there is an average quantity of photons emitted and received by any material in nature in a dynamical equilibrium. Then the photons’ emission and absorption phenomena are always present and any material has its atoms in a certain average level of energy. Depending on the material and the radiation the electrons can occupy different positions in the atom structure but electrons can also be liberated from the atoms if the atoms absorb photons with enough energy and in this case the materials get a net positive charge. If a certain material is positively charged then it has some positive potential relative to a completely neutral one. It is proposed here that for common metals what we normally intend as “electric ground” is really a positive potential. We can call it the Ground Level.

What I see in your link is the intention in current Physics to redefine the concept of "nothing" differently from the classical or philosophical one as "the absence of anything" even fields even any physics' law. And I can see strong discrepancies between some different physicists. This subject was covered at the beginning in the first page of this thread where I posted that there should be no discrepancy between Philosophy and Physics: My approach was to find a solution conciliating both point of view.

Well, returning to the topic of the thread and as it was moved to the Speculations forum I will speculate on something. The main conclusion at the initial post was that basing on the Parmenides principle that "nothing comes from nothing" it can be deduced the conclusion "something always existed" (if not, if the nothing happened at some time then nothing would have come after). The question now is how this could be compatible with current Physics' Science. A way I have heard somewhere, I don't remember where, is with an eternal existing "God" creating the universe at some time (it could be through some sort of "Big Bang"). This way, there would be something eternal, "God", while the universe would have a beginning at some time. Wouldn't this has a great sense? Even if assuming it as just a possibility by Physics' Science. May be we all can differ in what we can understand by "God" and there's a lot of options but we all could think in some kind of "Superior Intelligence" isn't it? Couldn't Physics' Science reach that conclusion or there's some problem with it? Which would be the problem? How that "God" would be and its capabilities could be a matter of big discrepancies but that would be another story...

I don't understand something in "Modern Physics". On one side the "Scientific Method" demands experimental verification of everything to be trusted but on the other side there's no problem in assuming undetectable things in theories. "Virtual particles", "dark matter" and so on... Yes, if that was the case the bots have found just a mirror... 68.5k views now and counting.

Good point but if that was the case it would happen in many other threads, may be all the threads, isn't it? I don't see this happening in other threads in this forum neither I have seen it in threads of other forums and let me tell you that I have been in physics' forums for many years, quite about twenty years. By te way, the views on this thread increased from 68.1k to 68.3k in the last eleven hours. This thread is actually intriguing myself now...

Following your reasoning I would ask for the experimental detection of those assumed "virtual particles" in a "quantum foam" before accepting their theories. As far as I know currently there is no one.

My basic premise is Parmenides' principle "Nothing comes from nothing", established long time ago, where the "nothing" is defined as the abscence of anything. This goes against current temptatives of establish "Something from nothing" like in Stephen Hawking phrasing "It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch." A way found was the try to redefine the "nothing" as having virtual particles permanently poping in and out of existence which I refuted as follows: Not to mention that for those "virtual particles" to exist Physics' Laws are needed and a question arises: How the Physics' Laws appear in the "nothing"? What else would need to be "established" in this thread?

I would yet wonder how they became interested in this thread...

Bots??? Other relatively short threads in the forum didn't receive so high amount of views so it would be about bots looking for Parménides' principle??? I don't think so...

I think some threads in this forum could matter to real scientists and experts as I think scienceforums.net forum could matter to them. You doubt this thread could matter to them, I'm thinking it did matter. Seems the thread didn't matter to you, I think it did matter to otherones.

Then I would ask the same question as for Intoscience: If not many physicists, who do you think have been viewed the thread then? As for now 68.1k views...

Who do you think have been viewed the thread then? What does the high number of views in a thread in a physics' forum would mean then? Do you mean physicsists don't care about logical subjects? I don't think so.

The high number of "views" in a very short period of time would not guarantee the quality of the content of the thread but do mean it is very probable the thread has been seen and taken into account by many physicists nowadays. Of course the only way to be completelly sure about that iwould be asking the physicists if they actually are aware about the thread or not. As for now is just my guess, I know.

The thread worthed...

This thread with just about 80 replies surprinsigly reached more than 60k views in a short period of time. Now, the "Big Bang" theory is being heard becoming to have no sense. Coincidence? For me, a thread in this forum, making history...

I would much like to know which thoughts this hypothetical dialog I wrote brings to other ones in this forum: THE WISE AND GOD _ Wise, about life… Too much bad things happen… _ Seems this is a wrong kind of life. Our World seems to be fortuitous. Is not as it was supposed a World and life would be. The things are not as they should be. _ Wise, God created the Universe, how would exist something wrong? _ God could have got own troubles... _ But God would have all power to solve anything... What would be missing to solve the things? _ Nobody knows God's situation. There's no way to communicate with God. Who knows... _ Nothing that could be done about... _ One thing is true, if there is a God with a creation he must have a way to perceive it, may be through our own eyes and ears. So God could observe us and may be someone could imagine something useful for God to solve the things. Every thing we could solve here could help God solve something there. May be God could guide our intuition to something... Just maybe... May be also could be just a matter of time... That's what I think...

Yes, I understand. Some people believe in a God (He/She/Couple/Various... whatever...), others prefer not to. I just would comment that for those who believe in a creator God exist the hope of a possible substantial change in terms of the entire world or may be the entire universe that would change the entire lifeform of the planet(s) while for those who don't, only the action of the humans-like beings could change the things in the world(s) the way they could. I'm aware about the possibilities opened nowadays in terms of machines, computers, robots, androids, genetically modified species, artificial intelligence, space travels and so on but only a God could change things in the physics' laws of the universe. There's a big difference in that...

That's the way of life we know. Are you capable to imagine some ideal kind of life? How it would be in your point of view? Consider for instance that the animals we know are born with quite full instincts in how to behave to live. Can't you imagine an entire lifeform totally compatible between all beings, safe and comfortable to live? And if you think in diversity you can create as much planets as you want with all the different lifeforms combinations you like. Didn't you think about that? May be could be time for so...

I don't think God have a problem because of something with myself, are you joking me? I'm talking about all kind of diseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies happening to all living beings in the entire world we know. Things affecting all lifeform in the planet. I'm not theist, may be some kind of deist. Deism you know? I know some ones believe in that, do you? I don't. Suffering, paining, should not exist as a rule in an ideal kind of life, in my point of view, I know.

Now I understand you. I was talking for generality on any work posted in the forum to discussion. Now related to the subject on God I posted and in the case you mention I do assume the intention of God is always to develop something perfect and good for living so, if I would find something to be not good and thinking it would be a flaw I would point it out and stay waiting for the thing to be solved by God. Of course I think that if God gave me the possibility of reason and some sense of perfection my point of view would matter to God. If that was te case, of me being wrong, I think I would understand with time and may be discussing the subject with other ones would help me understand.

I couldn't get your point. The intent of what?

Suppose someone develop a work with just an unperceived mistake. It would be an unperfect work. Now suppose the work is submitted for analysis and discussion by other ones and someone making a dislike on something related to that mistake or even pointing out the proper mistake. Now, if the owner of the work reconsider that unique flaw and correct it the work would become perfect. Then that was a way to make a perfect work. I think the first step to solve a problem is to assume it exists. The second would be to work in finding a solution. May be one could find a solution at once, that would be perfect. But now consider the case to not be sure if the reached solution is a right one or if it indeed is not the right one. Wouldn't be right for the one to put the problem into consideration by other ones in the try to find the right thing? He would be risking to have been wrong at first, to receive dislikes by other ones and even dislike himself for being wrong. But now, if the one think that the really important thing is to find the right solution to the problem he will go ahead discussing it until he or someone else finding the right thing at the end. That was a way (hard way may be) to achieve the goal of finding a solution to a problem I think.

I'm aware about that and that's why I'm posting the subject in the forum, to take into consideration other's point of view. I'm not trying to impose anything, I'm just offering my point of view on a subject which I think deserves attention. I'm presenting the subject open for análisis and discussions with other ones. I could be wrong in things, I know, and I think I have enough self criticism to reconsider and make changes in that my point of view if it were the case.