Butch

The orange is orange, even in the dark because it has the property of reflecting orange light. Just because we cannot see it does not change its properties... Unless we are talking about a cat in a box.

The positive to negative convention predates a good understanding of the atom... It is best to think in terms of hole flow and electron flow. Hole flow being the "flow" of the "holes" left in the valence of atoms and opposite to electron flow.

I like to think that black holes contain universes and our universe is the interior of a black hole in another universe... Could it be that the CMB is evidence of the event horizon of the black hole we are in? Anyway, I just don't see the need for white holes.

Kirk is dead his copy has retained his memories.

Resistance to flow affects quantity not velocity. The impulse of the electron motive force travels at relative velocities. Think of it this way, a hose is full of water, if we force a cup of water into one end, almost immediately a cup will exit the other end. If we stop adding water the cup we forced in will never make it out, but the impulse of that force had an effect on the opposite end much faster than water could ever travel through the hose. Theoretically superconductors have no resistance... Ohms law states that current = voltage/resistance. Division by 0 says any voltage applied will result in infinite current, this of course is not possible, but you get the idea.

Gee whiz... Photons are messengers carrying information in the form of waves, our eyes detect the photons that strike our retinas, our nervous system carries this information to our brains where we distinguish color and direction vector of the photon. Interestingly we can be easily fooled... frequency and direction can be distorted even to the point where we have no comprehension of the information.

We use a stream of tiny magnets with differing masses?

Thx Ok, thanks all... I get it... I think I am ready to dive into quarks, any suggested links?

Never said irrelevant, -1 + 1 = 0 if we flip things so that positive is the left side the math holds true. When we say entering or exiting we are actually just stating a polarity relationship, correct?... I am sorry if I seem to be beating on an unimportant point, I just want to be sure it is unimportant.

A lame horse in a Delta V rocket could be the fastest horse.

Thank you for the introduction... I get it! Am I right to say that enter and exit are arbitrary, since time is irrelevant?

Sorry, that is not soaking in... If a point in space has a positive charge and no other charge is in play the flux density at any given point would be determined by the inverse square... What is meant by start and end?

Inverse square. With limits of infinity, a right angle.

I mean we could use negative charge as our reference and a field would be measured via it's influence on a negative charge... You are the terminology Guru, I should have said arbitrary. Thx again, excellent link... tfgtfm!

As you stated in another topic Strange, perhaps the field is always there, as Swansont stated in the same topic the point charge could be the origin or the terminus of the field... Eureka! A level field represents no charge, however when we tilt the field we get a hyperbolic perturbation... We could say that a positive charge broadcasts such a perturbation that travels to infinity radially. A negative charge having a perturbation that travels from infinity to the terminus at the point. Follow me so far? I hope so because I see some rocks ahead. Light speed, curved space etc.

Are you saying polarity? Excellent link, however the innies and outies are not real, just assumed for our reference. I really need to be discussing this in my micro/macro topic in speculations. Aha! You have pushed me to discovery! See you in speculations!

Can we say that charge is just the origin of a field.

You are correct of course, and I have taken courses. My recent brain soaking in QM has been taxing, I have digested quite a lot in 2 or 3 months. Re-stating: Every point in space has a flux density relative to every other point in space. New statement. The flux density of any point is the resultant of an infinite(countable?) number of fields. Strange, I know you are going to jump on the frame of reference, however that is only important to an observer making a measurement... We are not measuring yet. Please bear with me while I take baby steps. Charge is simply the origin of a field.

Got that, I am saying simply that every point in space has relationships to every other point, certainly they are defined by our frame of reference. I am trying to explore from the micro to the macro rather than macro to micro... It seems that in many ways we are left with our feet dangling. Is a single point the absolute base? No... We can get into alternate dimensions and multiverse and such. The properties of single points I think is the best place to start to explore the physics of our universe. Don't you think field density would be better?

My living horse is the fastest running horse that has ever lived, but it can't run faster than any horse that has ever lived. Why not? Reveal hidden contents Quote

Our frame of reference is a single point, as we choose a single point in space, every other point becomes relative. Perhaps potential or "strength of influence" is a better term than charge, the strength of a field diminishes by the inverse square. A single point in a field would have a relative potential, not just in relation to the source charge but to every point in space. I may be getting a bit lost in terminology here, please feel free to correct me, I know you are a paragon of terminology. If there were a single electric field, and we chose 2 points within that field the field strength at point (a) would have a magnitude equivalent to the square of the distance from the source charge, point (b) would have a magnitude likewise. Point (a) would have a field strength relative to point (b). Of course in reality the field strength would be the result of many interacting fields. I suppose the correct terminology would be relative field density, even a point at the field source would not have charge, but only field density at maximum amplitude.

Moving on, Position is one property, a more interesting property is charge, does every point in space have a relative charge? I say yes, space is full of electric fields.

These can change the frequency of the photon certainly at some point this can cause decay?

Just about where we are, the property that first leaps to mind is position... A+B=C relative! We are not here yet, we have barely moved from infinitesimal to relative. Classical physics and certainly QM has been investigated from the direction of the macro to the micro... I think the little consensus that we have in this topic is that it is wise to proceed in the opposite direction, if we are able. I believe points in space is as micro as we need go for now. There is micro beyond that, however to reach that we should have to cross a threshold that takes us beyond the confines of this universe and could lead to circular reference. I would agree, "We don't know", however infinite or finite are only 2 possibilities... I suggest we start with the assumption of infinite... If it is wrong we can start again, at least we have a starting point that isn't in the middle of everything! Is the direction of this discussion becoming apparent?

A universe that empty would not contain photons or any form of energy.