JustJoe
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JustJoe
-
-
28 minutes ago, swansont said:
So the answer is no, you did not understand.
You might notice that Mordred mentions charge, not energy. (energy is not a substance)
If you can’t explain what grounding is, and what you mean by grounding mass, nobody can answer your question.
Which isn’t what the experiment did. It measured the electrostatic force present with a known electrical field, by comparing it to the gravitational force.
An aeroplane that is not able to fly is said to be grounded , a captain orders the grounding process .
An object at rest can be viewed as been grounded by the grounding process .
An objects internal conserved charge is ordered by the grounding process to be grounded , this process could be viewed as gravity .
Is that any clearer ?
Added
F+≠F-
0 -
23 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
"If they are adding charge , they aren't measuring the elementary charge" is a lecture, not a question.
That isn't a lecture , that is an observation of the experiments process and my opinion of an experiment that ionises particles rather than dealing with the single electron . Multiple electrons will have a greater magnitude than a single electron and so on . It also sounds like they ''bottled'' the droplets by using the two plates , adjusting them to suspend the droplets equal in force . Man made rather than a natural measure .
I could be wrong of course but the experiment doesn't seem correct to me in regards to this thread topic .
Added - I also see that the balloon sticking to a wall when static charged shows there is an unbalance of force , contradictory to the experiment ?
Added - diagram
0 -
32 minutes ago, swansont said:
They understand it. The question is: do you?
And given the information you’ve been given, do you want to amend the phrasing of your inquiry?
How so?
You can’t have a desired result when you don’t know the answer.
I took the answer in saying that any electrical energy that was not binded with something will be ''absorbed'' by the ground in a process called the grounding process , this electrical energy can then be considered to be grounded ?
Given the information I have been given still does not satisfy my inquiry because given questions by myself have been ignored leaving me to make assumptions .
I am not sure how I can amend my phrasing , I didn't even pass an English exam .
The experiment provided doesn't seem correct to me although admittingly it would be very difficult to measure the repulsive force of electron-electron or the attractive force of proton-electron .
10 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:To me, lecturing people about things you don't understand is cheating.
I am not lecturing anybody , I am asking question about physics and having an opinion on the answers . I don't know enough to lecture anybody . I thank your patience , you have been very helpful .
0 -
5 hours ago, swansont said:
Yes, and Joe has not answered the question of what they mean by grounding, because it's obviously not what the rest of us mean.
This reminds me of the video where Richard Feynman is asked to explain how magnetic attraction works and he says that he can't, because the interviewer is not familiar with the concepts that Feynman must use to explain it.
Which applies here: Joe asks a question that people can't parse because they are using terminology differently than everyone else understands it, and explaining the concepts is ineffective, because we are using physics that they don't understand.
I'm not being arkward but the other moderator explained grounding and grounded .
6 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:Good job! 🙂
They're not.
Okay, my friend. Suit yourself. 🙂
Thanks but I don't want to suit myself because I wouldn't understand correctly . You provided the experiment and to me the method of the experiment seems designed to give the result that they wanted . It says they charged particles , then adjusted the apparatus to get the desired result .
To me that is cheating
0 -
6 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:
You can look up the Millikan oil drop experiment if you're interested.
Read up on particle accelerators. They've been doing it for decades.
Equality is implied by the fact that normal objects don't react to electric charges.
I've looked up the experiment you suggested , ''
The oil drop experiment was performed by Robert A. Millikan and Harvey Fletcher in 1909 to measure the elementary electric charge (the charge of the electron). The experiment took place in the Ryerson Physical Laboratory at the University of Chicago.[1][2][3] Millikan received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1923.[4][5]
The experiment entailed observing tiny electrically charged droplets of oil located between two parallel metal surfaces, forming the plates of a capacitor. ''
How are electrically charged droplets anything like a single electron or single proton ?
I assume the oil droplet is made of atoms ?
If they are adding charge , they aren't measuring the elementary charge .
You also said , ''Equality is implied by the fact that normal objects don't react to electric charges''
Earlier on in this thread I provided several links , one being a plasma ball and one being the static charge of a balloons surface. If we consider the physics involved of the links , this implies normal objects do react to electrical charges .
I am not the smartest cookie in the tin but I am pretty sure that the plasma of a plasma ball is attracted to my finger when I place my finger on the glass .
I also know that I don't go around electrocuting people with my finger so my finger must be a neutral ?
Also if a static charged balloon can stick to a vertical wall , the likewise charge of the neutral wall is hardly being repulsive ?
It would be quite clear that the magnitude of charge of the balloon is giving the balloon more attraction power to the opposite charge within the wall ?
0 -
26 minutes ago, Mordred said:
To add to Lorentz Jr answer you might want to study Newtons laws of momentum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
there is a section there specifically on electromagnetism
while your at it memorize the following statement
"Mass is the resistance to inertia change" then look and see how that applies to the Laws above
the reason I suggest the above is that you seem to lack in basic physics and the above applies to every physics theory. So its highly important to understand the above.
for example your title Could mass be grounded by Mass makes zero sense if you apply the definition given
By substitution it would read as Could resistance to inertia change be grounded by resistance to inertia change ? the answer is obviously no once to use the definition of mass,
the others are doing an excellent job helping you on the EM field so I wont interfere with their progress .
I'm not sure how long of a title to a thread I can write so I wrote it the best way I thought would fit .
My title should of read , ''Could the electrical energy conserved by mass cause the mass to be grounded by other mass , as a part of the electrical energy grounding process '' .
0 -
28 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
Experimental evidence.
Could you provide a link to these experiments please ? I am unaware of any experiments where we can split the atom and experiment with individual components .
Also do you know whether a plasma balls plasma is positive or negative charge ?
28 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:Right.
Experimental evidence.
Of course. The net force is the sum of the two forces, so it would be nonzero if one force were stronger than the other.
I've added F-ev ≠ F+ev to represent the embolded part of the quote . -ev and +ev are negative and positive vectors .
I await your evidence though because you say the -ve and +ve forces are equal .
0 -
Does electron-proton attraction have more strength than electron-electron repulsion ?
-1 -
5 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:
That's the question I answered. The net force is from two equal and opposite forces that have joined together to make another force that adds up to zero.
F + (-F) = F - F = 0.
There can be nonzero net forces between atoms if they're right next to each other in the same solid or liquid. For instance, the Van der Waals force is caused by separations of the charges in each atom so opposite charges in the two atoms get closer to each other and attract each other. Hydrogen bonding is a similar phenomenon that occurs in water because the charge is already distributed unevenly between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. That's why water isn't as volatile as gasoline.
Ok, thank you , I understand what you said now . I think all your answers are way above my level of understanding perhaps , too smart .
You are saying that the pull is equal to the push if I am not mistaken .
How do you know that the push isn't lesser than the pull in strength ?
If the push was less in strength than the pull , would my speculation then work ?
3 hours ago, swansont said:You asked, and the answer was given, about an atom and an external charge. So all of this is irrelevant. You need to stick to the topic under discussion.
“Electrical energy is grounded” makes no sense. You also need to learn the terminology and use it properly.
We say electrical energy is grounding ?
I seem to be at 6's and 7's with terms .
0 -
2 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
Do you want to know the force between the proton and the electron, or the total force they exert together on other charges? I told you the answer to the first question (it's zero because the charges are equal and opposite), and @joigus told you the answer to the first one: Quantum mechanics prevents the electron from getting any closer to the proton than it does in its atomic orbital, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Perhaps I don't understand your answers because I am not good at the math you provided .
I want to know how much force an atom applies on another atom , I explain this force in being two seperate forces that have joined together to make another force .
In trying to explain differently , how much attractive force does a human finger apply on the plasma in a plasma ball ?
0 -
6 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
The net force exerted by the atom on an external charge Q is
F=kQqr2=kQ(0)r2=0r2=0
That can't be correct because of several reasons
1) An electrostatic charged balloons surface sticks to a vertical wall
2)Electrical energy is grounded
3)Lighting strikes are generally directed towards the ground
A wall is electrically neutral , how can a balloon stick to a vertical wall unless the wall was attracting the balloon ?
0 -
1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:
No, the general expression for the classical electrostatic force is F=kQqr2 , where q is the net charge on the atom, which is zero.
Yes I understand the net charge of an atom is zero but what is the net force ?
2 minutes ago, joigus said:As @Lorentz Jr told you, the CoM of e- and proton coincide. If e- is in an s-wave, the charge distribution has no polarity. Is that "nullified" enough for you?
If the electron is excited to a state with angular momentum, a slight polarity appears. So at very short distances you would see the electron "sticking out."
You see, there are details --many of them-- that you're missing. So your picture is probably very imprecise on many accounts...
Yes I admit there is probably many intricate details I don't know but I think my generalised understanding is ok .
0 -
1 minute ago, joigus said:
Equalised? I don't know what you mean. Electron attracts proton, proton attracts electron. They get as close as they can without contradicting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. What is equalised there? I don't understand. Physics has a language that refers to a mathematical formulation. What is equal to what?
The concept of force is less useful in quantum mechanics because we have stationary states, which can't be understood in terms of force. Many other quantum phenomena can't be understood in terms of force, like degeneracy pressure, or tunneling, or pair production... There are many things that cannot be understood in terms of force.
Is that better?
When a proton and electron become joined , one charge cancels out the other charge , making it a neutral particle . This it what I was attempting to say , but messed it up .
You explain - '' Electron attracts proton, proton attracts electron.''
I asked , when a proton and electron is joined , why is the attractive force then ignored ?
3 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:They're not. The electron's charge and center of mass are exactly the same (and opposite for charge) as the proton's. So the total force exerted by a hydrogen atom on distant charges is
ke(+q)+(−q)r2=ke0r2=0
I don't know a great deal about math but why have you used charge rather than a force ?
Shouldn't it be proton force + electron force divided by radius squared ?
0 -
2 minutes ago, joigus said:
The force is "nullified" --that's not the proper terminology though-- because of quantum mechanics. The electron keeps at a distance because it cannot get closer due to quantum constrictions.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Isn't the electron and proton unbalanced in charge magnitude which would account for motion and a 0 radius ?
Nullified is a terrible word to use , I should of said equalised .
0 -
Just now, joigus said:
I don't understand the question. Coulombs don't measure force; they measure electric charge. Science ignores force???
Yes science ignores the forces . An electron and proton are said to be attracted to each other because opposite charges attract each other . Ok, let us consider a proton and an electron that are joined together .
Does the electron charge still have an attractive force to free protons ?
Does the proton charge still have an attractive force to free electrons ?
My answer is yes , why would the force be nullified just because they are now joined together ?
-1 -
12 minutes ago, joigus said:
The actual reason why electricity cannot be "grounded" --or, if you will, there is no similar principle for gravity, as there is for electricity, as "grounding of a distribution of charges and currents"-- is that electricity is polar, while gravity is not. Charges can be positive or negative, while mass is always positive and the interaction is always attractive.
Positive distributions of charge have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity.
Negative distributions of charge have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity.
Distributions of mass have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity.
This is because, far enough away from the distribution of either charge or mass, the field always "looks" monopolar- except for radiation. You can see this from a totally general multipolar expansion of the electrostatic field. Gravity, as we know, is described by GR, but the pre-relativistic approach is enough for the purposes of this discussion. If anything, consideration of GR would make the analogy even more implausible.
For electric charge, actually, there are deep principles of physics that tell us that far enough away from the distribution of charge, the monopolar term must go to zero. This is not exactly equivalent to what a recent poster said that "total charge must be zero," or something to that effect. It just means that, at large enough distances, charges will screen each other so as to make the electrostatic field go down at large enough distances. IOW: You just cannot take excess positives to one region and excess negatives to another at arbitrarily large distances.
The Earth is a relatively good conductor and can take as many excess electrons as regular physical processes near its surface can produce without subtantially changing its global electric charge --which is zero. So you can set its electrostatic potential to V=0, while keeping consistent with V=0 at spatial infinity
You cannot do that with gravity... The upshot --if nothing else was understandable-- is: Gravity cannot be cancelled.
I've read before that lightning can be a positive or a negative charge and the charge that comes from the ground to connect with the lightning is the opposite charge ?
When we rub a balloon and create an electrostatic charge , the balloon can be stuck to a vertical wall , the static energy being grounded by the wall .
An atom has an electron and a proton , these both have opposite charges . Why are the Coulombs of force ignored by science just because they measure 0 voltage ?
A force isn't a voltage .
0 -
7 minutes ago, studiot said:
Thank you for this, I wasn't aware that Einstein contradicted himself so completely. +1
But then perhaps these were just fireside musings a process many thinkers on the subject have indulged themselves in.
Did you read more of this article ?
On page 176 he says
But then on the next page he says
But he does not explain how something that has no physical properties can be either isotropic or homogenous.
I have offered to describe non controversial standard theory about your claims but since you wish to dismiss them and substitute what I consider wild assed guesses of your own which would be fine if you were to follow the rules of speculations and provide solid derivations and other evidence of their validity.
I will leave you until this happens or a moderator starts closing threads as being outwith the rules.
A speculation doesn't require supporting evidence , speculation is more talking about the information and using common sense . However , I'll add citations to the topic :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/balloons-and-static-electricity/about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
The above is supporting evidence of a grounding gravity theory .
0 -
1 minute ago, studiot said:
Thank you for this, I wasn't aware that Einstein contradicted himself so completely.
But then perhaps these were just fireside musings a process many thinkers on the subject have indulged themselves in.
Did you read more of this article ?
On page 176 he says
But then on the next page he says
But he does not explain how something that has no physical properties can be either isotropic or homogenous.
The Big Bang says that the universe started from a high temperature , dense state . It then says that this state expanded across space in a big bang . Space can't be physically empty when the big bang expanded , filling all of observable space with matter and EM fields .
There may of been empty space before the big bang but once the big bang occured , that becomes irrelavant .
0 -
16 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
It's similar to what Maxwell worked on back in the late 1800s, except it's more complicated because there are almost 20 known fields now. Maxell's model had little mechanical things of some kind spinning inside cells with rollers around them to allow the spinning. I'm still reading about Penrose's ideas, but I have to guess that they're based on the eiωt terms in quantum wave functions, since they obviously at least suggest some kind of spinning activity.
I consider that the Earths Em field and the Earth is like a bike wheel and the fields motion is relative to the ''spindles'' motion . I also consider that the field can curve the same as a magnetic field . My reason for thinking this is because I believe there is a +y axis tensioner being applied on the body that creates the EM fields dimensions .
0 -
22 minutes ago, studiot said:
That could be a reasonable question except that matter refers to any particle with mass. (which for your information means not photons)
A neutron is a particle with mass that has no charge. A Uranium atom has only 92 protons and 92 electrons but 143 - 146 neutrons.
I am aware of Neutrons but atoms still have the properties of a positive and negative charge even if measuring 0 voltage . We aren't talking about isolated particles although even if there was free neutrons , the neutrons would also be attracted by the grounding process .
It is my opinion that gravity is the grounding process and orbital motion is caused by thermal dynamics . The heat of the Earth system can't possibility be attracted to the Sun , the opposite reaction is implied ?
0 -
11 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
In my opinion, the simplest explanation of fields is that they're all oscillatory modes or other properties of the vacuum/ether. Roger Penrose has modeled the vacuum as a "spin network".
Physicists talk about fields as being "fundamental", or "liquids", but I would say they're too complicated to be fundamental "building blocks of nature", and real liquids don't overlap each other.
Fields most definitely converge . An Em field in my opinion is an extension of the matter , forced to extend into space by space itself .
However , let's not change the subject too much . Here is a diagram of this topic question of an object ''communicating'' with the ground via the EM field of the ground .
0 -
21 minutes ago, studiot said:
Small wonder your understanding of electrical phenomena is all over the shop.
Without going into sub-nuclear particle physics which would add nothing to the clarity here are my answers.
Charge is the basic property possessed by some, but not all matter to which we attribute electrical phenomena.
At all levels of analysis we call matter which posseses this property a charge carrier.
When charge carriers move from place to place we call the flow of such carriers a current.
By itself no energy is involved in a single particle of matter possessing a charge. The energy arises as a result of interaction of two or more charges.
When two or more charges interact, they set up a potential field which we measure as a voltage.
Grounded is an adjective describing a ground or earth which is a circuit theory term not a physics term referring to a circuit node or point which does not change in voltage regardless of how much current flows into or out of it.
Please note it is possible to have a current without a voltage or a voltage without a current.
Please ask about any terms used above that you are unsure of or did not understand.
Thank you , I will read this several times to be clear in my understanding .
I firstly question this - ''Charge is the basic property possessed by some, but not all matter to which we attribute electrical phenomena.''
Doesn't all matter contain electrical charge because of the proton and electron ?
Or do you consider electrical charge being only a value greater than 0 ?
I personally see all matter to have electrical charge even though it measures 0 voltage because it is constructed of atoms .
14 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:Yes, that's right. And Einstein fully accepted the existence of the vacuum as an "ether" that gets curved. The only aspect of the ether that he rejected is the idea that it has a state of motion, because no such thing has ever been detected.
In my opinion any EM field that is binded with matter could be viewed as an aether . If I shine a torch in any direction , the light has to pass through the EM field .
I think we already have detected an aether but not the sort of aether that is stationary and binded with space .
Added -diagram
0 -
6 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
because it's really the curvature of space-time.
I don't think Einstein ever said that gravity is the curvature of space-time. I recall him saying that large masses could curve space-time , implying that mass was the cause of gravity . Space-time curvature would be an effect caused by gravity , however for something to curve , it would require physical substance. A curved line drawn on paper is always curved relative to the ''flat'' paper .
Atmosphere is a medium , there is no reason not to consider that EM fields could also act as a medium for the propagation of light .
0 -
23 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
Grounding of electric charges (usually electrons) means they travel through a conductor. It's a lot harder for them to travel through air.
Massive objects can travel through air or the vacuum by virtue of gravity or their momentum, so they don't need to be grounded by anything. The presence of positive and negative charges isn't really relevant.
You are assuming passing through air rather than using the Earths field as a ''medium'' . You say positive and negative isn't really relevant although we know that a positive and a negative both apply forces acting on each other . We measure 0 net charge when an electron and a proton is binded together but that doesn't necessary equate to no net force . Take ourselves for instant , we have an amount of conserved electrical energy that must be grounded by the earth .
I calculate that gravity isn't one force , instead 2 forces at work . The negative of a ''loose'' object attracted to the positive of the ground and the positive of a ''loose'' object attracted to the negative of the ground and vice versus .
4 minutes ago, studiot said:Excellent answer +1
Joe you have an number of threads you have left hanging, all of which suggest you need to review some basics.
What do you understand by:-
Voltage
Current
Charge
Grounded
?
You need a clear picture of what these mean before you can progress to the answere to the questions you are asking.
Current is the flow , grounded has been discussed in another thread , voltage a magnitude , charge the polarity ?
23 minutes ago, studiot said:Excellent answer +1
Joe you have an number of threads you have left hanging, all of which suggest you need to review some basics.
What do you understand by:-
Voltage
Current
Charge
Grounded
?
You need a clear picture of what these mean before you can progress to the answere to the questions you are asking.
P.s Does this work ?
-3
Could all mass be grounded by mass ?
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by JustJoe
Words have different uses , why do you think that science has to use a specific set of wording ?
I'm not being awkward but you are implying that scientists can't understand the every day use of wording with explanation of the context .
Yes , children can be grounded , aeroplanes can also be grounded , electrical wiring that is attached to a plug has a ground or alternatively an earth .
Ok , lets say I agree with you , my use of grounding is a missuse .
What would you call the process in scientific terms for what I've explained ?
I did say that .
''I agree the experiment is not relevant to this thread, any more than most of your posting.''
Do you suggest I leave the thread I started that is asking questions ?
It isn't up to me to convince me that what you all are telling me is the truth and accurate facts. I am not that smart but I am neither naive . It is up to the repliers to convince me of the facts .
This far every replier as ignored the questions I posed about the balloon and the plasma ball that shows there is an unbalance of force .