Einstein was right!

[swansont]

It is good then that you requested clarification. To be more descriptive, particles never actually make contact because of electrostatic fields. Perhaps you can clarify this point better than I?

But you said this effect depends on mass density. My point is that it does not.

 

Even if you want to draw a distinction for liquid vs solid, you can find light solids that are stronger than heavier ones. (Titanium or aluminum vs copper for instance). So this isn't something that varies with density.

[Butch]

But you said this effect depends on mass density. My point is that it does not.

 

Even if you want to draw a distinction for liquid vs solid, you can find light solids that are stronger than heavier ones. (Titanium or aluminum vs copper for instance). So this isn't something that varies with density.

I will need to explain in greater detail, I will work on that, you are quite the task master... I hope you will find more time for this discussion.

But you said this effect depends on mass density. My point is that it does not.

 

Even if you want to draw a distinction for liquid vs solid, you can find light solids that are stronger than heavier ones. (Titanium or aluminum vs copper for instance). So this isn't something that varies with density.

I said the field strength increases with mass density.

[swansont]

I said the field strength increases with mass density.

Which was the reason you gave for not passing through solids.

 

But that's fine. You can confirm that claim: show that field strength increases with density.

[Butch]

Which was the reason you gave for not passing through solids.

 

But that's fine. You can confirm that claim: show that field strength increases with density.

Hopefully, we can discuss this without the need to delve deeply into quanta and the Pauli exclusion principal, can l express this as the charge field created by the electron cloud and proceed from there?

[swansont]

Hopefully, we can discuss this without the need to delve deeply into quanta and the Pauli exclusion principal, can l express this as the charge field created by the electron cloud and proceed from there?

You can try. But atoms are neutral.

[Butch]

You can try. But atoms are neutral.

Most are,some are not, but that is beside the point. The charge appearing at the surface is negative, so when two objects approach one another do they attract or repel?

[Strange]

Most are,some are not, but that is beside the point.

 

 

They are all neutral. And it seems highly relevant. It is one of many reasons why you can't explain gravity in terms of electric charge.

 

 

 

The charge appearing at the surface is negative, so when two objects approach one another do they attract or repel?

 

Well, the existence of molecules would suggest that atoms can be attracted to one another. But then again, an oily surface repels water. So perhaps there is no simple answer to that question.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

Most are,some are not, but that is beside the point. The charge appearing at the surface is negative, so when two objects approach one another do they attract or repel?

Atoms are, by definition, neutral.

 

Attraction vs repulsion depends on the details

[Butch]

 

 

They are all neutral. And it seems highly relevant. It is one of many reasons why you can't explain gravity in terms of electric charge.

Ions are not neutral.

 

 

Well, the existence of molecules would suggest that atoms can be attracted to one another. But then again, an oily surface repels water. So perhaps there is no simple answer to that question.

Bonding, as long as it does not violate Pauli. Nice to hear from you again, I hope that by the time we are done here the four of you will make quite a team. I do not intend on explaining gravity by electric charge, however it has a role. I will need to present some illustrations. BBL. Edited December 27, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

Ions are not neutral.

 

 

That is because they are ions, not atoms.

[Butch]

 

That is because they are ions, not atoms.

???!

[Strange]

Yes, shocking isn't it. Words have specific meanings and you will be corrected if you misuse them.

[Butch]

Yes, shocking isn't it. Words have specific meanings and you will be corrected if you misuse them.

So you are saying NaCl is a molecule that is not made up of atoms?

[Strange]

So you are saying NaCl is a molecule that is not made up of atoms?

 

 

No, I am not saying that at all. However, the sodium atom donates an electron to the chlorine atom (because it is energetically favourable) and forms an ionic bond. So I suppose you can consider both atoms to be ionised but the net charge of the molecule remains zero.

 

Where you are going with all this....

[Butch]

 

 

No, I am not saying that at all. However, the sodium atom donates an electron to the chlorine atom (because it is energetically favourable) and forms an ionic bond. So I suppose you can consider both atoms to be ionised but the net charge of the molecule remains zero.

 

Where you are going with all this....

Nowhere actually, we are getting quite sidetracked. I am only referencing the electron cloud and its negative charge, I would like to proceed from there, if there are no objections.

[swansont]

Ions are not neutral.

.

And we call them ions, to distinguish them from neutral atoms.

[Sriman Dutta]

Ions are charged particle that are formed due to loss or gain of electrons by an atom. Atoms that lose electrons are called cations, whereas those that accept them are known as anions. Atoms do so in order to attain a stable electronic configuration of the nearest noble gas.

[Butch]

Ions are charged particle that are formed due to loss or gain of electrons by an atom. Atoms that lose electrons are called cations, whereas those that accept them are known as anions. Atoms do so in order to attain a stable electronic configuration of the nearest noble gas.

I could use the assistance of someone with ideas on the nature of matter, it is important to my hypothesis.

[Butch]

Butch maybe you could check my thread on space as shrinking, i fully agree with your theory:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101821-how-is-time-defined-in-newtonian-physics/

 

myself i concluded independently a model where as radius of space doubles time halves but maybe yours is more accurate i dont know enough physics

 

but i took it that space shrinks in front of mass what is the same than mass inflates in front of space

Edited December 30, 2016 by Butch

[Butch]

Been a while, I think the problem here is in communicating the concept. I believe I can now provide a better path to understanding. The universe is relative, but there are some absolutes... The speed of light for example. What is the framework that the universe is built upon, it is not enough to say that "It is what it is!", There must be an underlying framework, and it must be ultimately simple ( it must not itself need framework). Let's start with the following concept and argue it for a bit.

Time and space do not coexist. The universe does not exist at T-n it exists now, at T0.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Butch said:

Time and space do not coexist.

The evidence for general relativity appears to show you are wrong.

[studiot]

Butch,

What do you think the difference between an invariant and an absolute is?

Edited September 28, 2017 by studiot

[Butch]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Butch,

What do you think the difference between an invariant and an absolute is?

The speed of light is absolute, the rest mass of a particle is invarient, either will do to demonstrate the necessity of an underlying framework.

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

The evidence for general relativity appears to show you are wrong.

Einstein says that time is an illusion, I agree, however as I will endeavor to demonstrate at a later time the relative universe is a manifestation of our minds, we do not witness the absolute universe... We can wax philisophical much later. Can we agree that the universe we witness exists only as we witness it?

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, Butch said:

Einstein says that time is an illusion

Citation needed. As GR is based on the concept of space-time this seems like a false claim.

Quote

we do not witness the absolute universe...

What is the "absolute universe" and what evidence do you have that there is such a thing?

Quote

Can we agree that the universe we witness exists only as we witness it?

As who witnesses it? It is different for each observer. Is that what you mean?

[Butch]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Citation needed. As GR is based on the concept of space-time this seems like a false claim.

What is the "absolute universe" and what evidence do you have that there is such a thing?

As who witnesses it? It is different for each observer. Is that what you mean?

Not really, a rainbow is a perfect example, each observer witnesses a different rainbow. We each witness a different universe and every instant of time provides a new universe to each observer. The current universe for each observer exists for only an instant at T0, the present.

The absolute universe does exist, and my goal here is to convey an understanding of the evidence for it, without that understanding, it does not exist for the individual observer.

If we can conceive of it we will understand the framework our relative universe is built upon and it can be tested against the science of our relative universe and ultimately science can be tested against it.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Butch
Grammar