| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sunny" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 01:46:44 AM |
| Object: |
Charge |
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton what is negetaive or
positive, is it related to spin
.
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
10 Jan 2005 03:30:26 AM |
|
|
"Sunny" <Sunny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EpqEd.34244$k4.656508@news1.nokia.com...
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton what
is negetaive or positive, is it related to spin
Positive-Negative (C); Left-Right (P); Past-Future (T):
Define each sense as you please, but then, take note of
Nature's Law (as observed ... so far)
C P T = + 1
[C(harge reversal)]*[P(arity reversal)]*[T(ime reversal)] = + 1
Otherwise, spin and charge are independent quantum
numbers.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
10 Jan 2005 04:32:11 AM |
|
|
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
what is negetaive or positive,
The charge of the proton is defined to be positive. The
total charge of a proton and an electron together is zero.
Hence one says that the charge of the electron is negative.
Does that help in any way?
is it related to spin
No.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
10 Jan 2005 04:23:55 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the essence of -
or, in effect -gravity? (Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater force- -charge)?).
what is negetaive or positive,
The charge of the proton is defined to be positive. The
total charge of a proton and an electron together is zero.
Hence one says that the charge of the electron is negative.
Does that help in any way?
is it related to spin
No.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
13 Jan 2005 09:09:56 AM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cruvsg$m1h$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the
essence of -
or, in effect -gravity?
These two interactions behave quite differently. the EM interaction
is one
in which two electrically charged particles exchange photons. The
gravitational interaction is at its root a phenomenon due to the fact
that mass and energy density distort space.
At the level on elementary particles, the gravitational interaction is
unbelievably feeble compared to the EM interaction.
(Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater
force- -charge)?).
As it stands, that fragment conveys no meaning. Could you rephrase it
such that it becomes clearer?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
13 Jan 2005 10:38:40 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cs6304$o62$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cruvsg$m1h$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the
essence of -
or, in effect -gravity?
These two interactions behave quite differently. the EM interaction
is one
in which two electrically charged particles exchange photons.
Do you have any comment on the notion of EM 'forces' 'in a state' other than
as electrically charged particles exchanging photons?
The
gravitational interaction is at its root a phenomenon due to the fact
that mass and energy density distort space.
At the level on elementary particles, the gravitational interaction is
unbelievably feeble compared to the EM interaction.
(Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater
force- -charge)?).
As it stands, that fragment conveys no meaning. Could you rephrase it
such that it becomes clearer?
The essential idea is developed in my post to Old Man.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
13 Jan 2005 04:56:17 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs68pa$qe0$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cs6304$o62$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cruvsg$m1h$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part
in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the
essence of -
or, in effect -gravity?
These two interactions behave quite differently. the EM
interaction
is one
in which two electrically charged particles exchange photons.
Do you have any comment on the notion of EM 'forces' 'in a state'
other than
as electrically charged particles exchanging photons?
The
gravitational interaction is at its root a phenomenon due to the
fact
that mass and energy density distort space.
At the level on elementary particles, the gravitational
interaction is
unbelievably feeble compared to the EM interaction.
(Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater
force- -charge)?).
As it stands, that fragment conveys no meaning. Could you
rephrase it
such that it becomes clearer?
The essential idea is developed in my post to Old Man.
I read your post to Old Man. It was quite as opaque as the fragment
on which I require elucidation.. My question remains:
Could you rephrase that fragment just higher up here to which I
referred previously, to instil some meaning into it?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
11 Jan 2005 11:06:51 AM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the essence of -
or, in effect -gravity?
Quite a lot of people have thought about this in the last
century. It does not work.
For starters: like charges repel, different charges attract.
In contrast, masses always attract.
(Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater force- -charge)?).
What do you mean with "force- -charge"?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
11 Jan 2005 02:49:11 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs113a$rbj$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the essence
of -
or, in effect -gravity?
Quite a lot of people have thought about this in the last
century. It does not work.
For starters: like charges repel, different charges attract.
In contrast, masses always attract.
There seems to be an implied differentiation between "mass" and "charges".
So, what are you regarding as the the most elementary "mass"? Perhaps
"compunds of charges"? Perhaps "atoms"?
Doyou mean that masses of the same make-up as well as masses of different
make-up attract regardless? Also, what about degree of attraction?
Am I correct in presuming that "masses" express - effect through - some or,
more likely, various, relationships (or relationships of relationships ...)
of "like charges" and "different charges"?
(Re "masses always attract": It may be better not to pursue this further for
the moment as we are addressing the nature of "gravity" - "attraction").
If I am correct that masses effect through relationships of like and
different charges, and if we may think of such "masses" as "fields" (of like
and different charges(- -forces)); as fields expressed through like and
different charges, may we say that such masses or fields are forces (of like
and different charges) and feature fields within fields - masses within
masses - and that for any such sub-mass to break free from the greater whole
would require employment of extra energy- -force (or expenditure of reserved
energy- -force) or else of an upheaval of the whole - because of the force
which we call "gravity" expressing?
(Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater
force- -charge)?).
What do you mean with "force- -charge"?
I use the - - when I want to express that concepts are running into each
other, for example "feel- -be" or "atoms- -elements".
I am implying that any "charge" is a "force" (and, vica-versa, that any
"force" probably involves "charge"), and indeed that "mass" too arises
through same. Thereby, one may say: "force- -charge- -mass".
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
13 Jan 2005 09:46:25 AM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs113a$rbj$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the
essence
of -
or, in effect -gravity?
Quite a lot of people have thought about this in the last
century. It does not work.
For starters: like charges repel, different charges attract.
In contrast, masses always attract.
There seems to be an implied differentiation between "mass" and
"charges".
So, what are you regarding as the the most elementary "mass"? Perhaps
"compunds of charges"? Perhaps "atoms"?
Doyou mean that masses of the same make-up as well as masses of
different
make-up attract regardless? Also, what about degree of attraction?
Am I correct in presuming that "masses" express - effect through -
some or,
more likely, various, relationships (or relationships of
relationships ...)
of "like charges" and "different charges"?
(Re "masses always attract": It may be better not to pursue this
further for
the moment as we are addressing the nature of "gravity" -
"attraction").
If I am correct that masses effect through relationships of like and
different charges, and if we may think of such "masses" as "fields"
(of like
and different charges(- -forces)); as fields expressed through like
and
different charges, may we say that such masses or fields are forces
(of like
and different charges) and feature fields within fields - masses
within
masses - and that for any such sub-mass to break free from the
greater whole
would require employment of extra energy- -force (or expenditure of
reserved
energy- -force) or else of an upheaval of the whole - because of the
force
which we call "gravity" expressing?
(Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater
force- -charge)?).
What do you mean with "force- -charge"?
I use the - - when I want to express that concepts are running into
each
other, for example "feel- -be" or "atoms- -elements".
I am implying that any "charge" is a "force" (and, vica-versa, that
any
"force" probably involves "charge"), and indeed that "mass" too
arises
through same. Thereby, one may say: "force- -charge- -mass".
--
I'm going to answer using language reminiscent of Feynman diagrams,
because I think those diagrams give a good intuitive feel for what
roles various things play. I will play fast and loose with the language
without loss of educational value, I hope.
Let's suppose we have two objects that interact. That interaction
consists of the swapping of something that propagates between them --
we'll call that a propagator. The propagator carries with it some
properties as well.
The point at which an object emits a propagator we'll call a vertex,
primarily because it looks like a branch springing off the trunk of a
tree. Likewise, the point at which the other object absorbs the
propagator is also a vertex.
The strength and character of the interaction depends on three things:
the propagator and the vertices at each end of the swap. The
proportionality constant contributing to the strength of the
interaction at the vertex is essentially the "charge" of that object
doing the emitting or absorbing.
Different interactions (e.g. electromagnetism and gravity and the
strong nuclear force) have different propagators and different charges
associated with them. Not all objects have all charges, and so not all
objects participate in all interactions. Of the four fundamental
interactions, only quarks have charge associated with all four.
Electrons have three. Their gravitational "charge" and their electric
"charge" are not related to each other. They simply participate in both
electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, with different vertex
strengths and different propagators for the two interactions.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 04:02:14 AM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs113a$rbj$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the essence
of -
or, in effect -gravity?
Quite a lot of people have thought about this in the last
century. It does not work.
For starters: like charges repel, different charges attract.
In contrast, masses always attract.
There seems to be an implied differentiation between "mass" and "charges".
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
So, what are you regarding as the the most elementary "mass"?
There is no elementary mass, as far as we know today.
Perhaps "compunds of charges"? Perhaps "atoms"?
Sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with "the most
elementary mass".
Do you mean that masses of the same make-up as well as masses of different
make-up attract regardless?
What do you mean with "make-up" here? Structure?
Also, what about degree of attraction?
Degree???
Am I correct in presuming that "masses" express - effect through - some or,
more likely, various, relationships (or relationships of relationships ...)
of "like charges" and "different charges"?
Sorry, I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
(Re "masses always attract": It may be better not to pursue this further for
the moment as we are addressing the nature of "gravity" - "attraction").
That masses always attract is an observation. Where is the
problem?
If I am correct that masses effect through relationships of like and
different charges,
Sorry, I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
and if we may think of such "masses" as "fields"
Why on earth should we? That makes no sense at all. A mass
is a single number, specifying a property of a body. A field
is a function of the space coordinates. No similarity here
at all!
(of like
and different charges(- -forces)); as fields expressed through like and
different charges, may we say that such masses or fields are forces (of like
and different charges) and feature fields within fields - masses within
masses - and that for any such sub-mass to break free from the greater whole
would require employment of extra energy- -force (or expenditure of reserved
energy- -force) or else of an upheaval of the whole - because of the force
which we call "gravity" expressing?
Sorry, I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
(Consider a force- -charge 'attempting' to break out
of such a (perhaps planetary) field (of vastly greater
force- -charge)?).
What do you mean with "force- -charge"?
I use the - - when I want to express that concepts are running into each
other, for example "feel- -be" or "atoms- -elements".
What do you mean with "concepts running into each other"?
Your examples don't help me in understanding that, sorry.
I am implying that any "charge" is a "force"
Then you don't know what the words mean, plain and simple.
(and, vica-versa, that any
"force" probably involves "charge"),
Inertia? Resistance?
and indeed that "mass" too arises
through same. Thereby, one may say: "force- -charge- -mass".
Sorry, I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 05:21:49 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs113a$rbj$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the essence
of -
or, in effect -gravity?
Quite a lot of people have thought about this in the last
century. It does not work.
For starters: like charges repel, different charges attract.
In contrast, masses always attract.
There seems to be an implied differentiation between "mass" and
"charges".
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
My entire post, and so the subsequent points raised, relate to the
relationship, if any, of mass to charge.
Below, you said "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a
body". Does that property arise through, or feature, or express charge?
Snipping the remainder, for now.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 08:30:03 AM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs113a$rbj$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the essence
of -
or, in effect -gravity?
Quite a lot of people have thought about this in the last
century. It does not work.
For starters: like charges repel, different charges attract.
In contrast, masses always attract.
There seems to be an implied differentiation between "mass" and
"charges".
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
My entire post, and so the subsequent points raised, relate to the
relationship, if any, of mass to charge.
Yes, I noted that. Did you also note that I did not understand
most of your points, and pointed out several cases where you
used terms of physics in a wrong way?
Below, you said "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a
body". Does that property arise through, or feature, or express charge?
According to current knowledge, no.
Unless one wants to call the strength of coupling to the
Higgs field a "charge". Would be possible in principle,
but would be news to me that anyone does do that.
And please note that even then, this has nothing at all to
do with the usual meaning of "charge", i.e. electric charge.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 10:57:21 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs113a$rbj$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:crtljb$1nk$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way?
Any thoughts on such "electromagnetic interactions" being the essence
of -
or, in effect -gravity?
Quite a lot of people have thought about this in the last
century. It does not work.
For starters: like charges repel, different charges attract.
In contrast, masses always attract.
There seems to be an implied differentiation between "mass" and
"charges".
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
My entire post, and so the subsequent points raised, relate to the
relationship, if any, of mass to charge.
Yes, I noted that. Did you also note that I did not understand
most of your points, and pointed out several cases where you
used terms of physics in a wrong way?
Again, I was attempting to guess at, what I regarded as, your "implied
differentiation between "mass" and "charges"".
Indeed, I'm still stuck on the relationship of these.
** Reviewing: Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way? **
So, we have - you say - that "(electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions". Also, "masses always attract". Further,
below, "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a body".
However, as to whether that property arise[s] through, or feature[s], or
express[es] charge: "According to current knowledge, no. [] Unless []".
So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context of "masses
always attract" - does not effect through, or consisit of, or express, or
feature electromagnetic interactions?
Below, you said "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a
body". Does that property arise through, or feature, or express charge?
According to current knowledge, no.
Unless one wants to call the strength of coupling to the
Higgs field a "charge". Would be possible in principle,
but would be news to me that anyone does do that.
Perhaps this is where we (would) connect.
And please note that even then, this has nothing at all to
do with the usual meaning of "charge", i.e. electric charge.
Whatever about "the usual meaning of "charge", i.e. electric charge", the
meaning I am addressing, as above, is: * Any thoughts on such
"electromagnetic interactions" ["something which has (electric) charge"]
being the essence of - or, in effect - gravity? *
Perhaps I should post at this point and see what develops.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 11:23:53 AM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip old stuff]
Again, I was attempting to guess at, what I regarded as, your "implied
differentiation between "mass" and "charges"".
Indeed, I'm still stuck on the relationship of these.
** Reviewing: Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way? **
So, we have - you say - that "(electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions".
No. I said that *something that has* electric charge takes
part in electromagnetic interactions.
Also, "masses always attract". Further,
below, "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a body".
Note that the meaning of "mass" in these two statements is
not exactly the same. If one uses for "mass" the meaning
of the second statement, the first statement should read:
"things with non-zero mass always attract".
However, as to whether that property arise[s] through, or feature[s], or
express[es] charge: "According to current knowledge, no. [] Unless []".
Indeed. According to current knowledge, mass has little to
nothing to do with (electric) charge.
So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context of "masses
always attract" - does not effect through, or consist of, or express, or
feature electromagnetic interactions?
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by "effect through", "express",
and "feature" here, but I would say yes.
Below, you said "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a
body". Does that property arise through, or feature, or express charge?
According to current knowledge, no.
Unless one wants to call the strength of coupling to the
Higgs field a "charge". Would be possible in principle,
but would be news to me that anyone does do that.
Perhaps this is where we (would) connect.
Do you even know what the Higgs field is?
And please note that even then, this has nothing at all to
do with the usual meaning of "charge", i.e. electric charge.
Whatever about "the usual meaning of "charge", i.e. electric charge", the
meaning I am addressing, as above, is: * Any thoughts on such
"electromagnetic interactions" ["something which has (electric) charge"]
being the essence of - or, in effect - gravity? *
No, electromagnetic interactions have nothing to do with
gravity.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 02:00:59 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs3mf9$mfo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip old stuff]
Again, I was attempting to guess at, what I regarded as, your "implied
differentiation between "mass" and "charges"".
Indeed, I'm still stuck on the relationship of these.
** Reviewing: Sunny wrote:
what does it mean by charge in electron or proton
In essence, something which has (electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions. Does that help in any way? **
So, we have - you say - that "(electric) charge takes part in
electromagnetic interactions".
No. I said that *something that has* electric charge takes
part in electromagnetic interactions.
But, for my purposes, I am disregarding level; I am content that
"electromagnetic interactions" feature "something" which in turn features
"electric charge".
So, for emphasis: Electric charge expresses in electromagnetic interactions.
Also, "masses always attract". Further,
below, "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a body".
Note that the meaning of "mass" in these two statements is
not exactly the same. If one uses for "mass" the meaning
of the second statement, the first statement should read:
"things with non-zero mass always attract".
I am interested in the meaning of mass of the first statement - mass which
"[] always attract[s]". (Are we then still talking about "things with
non-zero mass" (which always attract)?)
However, as to whether that property arise[s] through, or feature[s], or
express[es] charge: "According to current knowledge, no. [] Unless []".
Indeed. According to current knowledge, mass has little to
nothing to do with (electric) charge.
According to the context above, what have we got?
1. Electric charge expresses in electromagnetic interactions.
2. I am interested in the meaning of mass of the first statement - mass
which "[] always attract[s]".
So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context of
"masses
always attract" - does not effect through, or consist of, or express, or
feature electromagnetic interactions?
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by "effect through",
"express",
and "feature" here, but I would say yes.
Again, much as in points 1 and 2 above, I am implying that I expect that
mass is formed through (consists of, expresses or features - in effect, mass
consists of- -features- -expresses- -effects through) electromagnetic
interactions. Or at least that electromagnetic interactions are factors
expressing in mass - or giving rise to mass.
However, you seem to be saying "yes": "mass [] does not effect through []
electromagnetic interactions" (regardless of level).
Below, you said "A mass is a single number, specifying a property of a
body". Does that property arise through, or feature, or express charge?
According to current knowledge, no.
Unless one wants to call the strength of coupling to the
Higgs field a "charge". Would be possible in principle,
but would be news to me that anyone does do that.
Perhaps this is where we (would) connect.
Do you even know what the Higgs field is?
Not at this point, but I can probably get an idea if it is relevant - which
perhaps it won't be - after we sort out the stuff above. (Also, meaning no
disrespect, I have a strong feeling of your limitations). In the context of
defining gravity, do you "know" "what the Higgs field is" - as distinct from
having a theory- -model in which 'it' features?
And please note that even then, this has nothing at all to
do with the usual meaning of "charge", i.e. electric charge.
Whatever about "the usual meaning of "charge", i.e. electric charge",
the
meaning I am addressing, as above, is: * Any thoughts on such
"electromagnetic interactions" ["something which has (electric) charge"]
being the essence of - or, in effect - gravity? *
No, electromagnetic interactions have nothing to do with
gravity.
Does that imply that you can define gravity, and could all along, and that
you've been wasting my time?
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 04:27:54 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs408j$5de$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cs3mf9$mfo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip old stuff]
[snip more stuff]
So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context of
"masses
always attract" - does not effect through, or consist of, or express,
or
feature electromagnetic interactions?
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by "effect through",
"express",
and "feature" here, but I would say yes.
Again, much as in points 1 and 2 above, I am implying that I expect that
mass is formed through (consists of, expresses or features - in effect,
mass
consists of- -features- -expresses- -effects through) electromagnetic
interactions. Or at least that electromagnetic interactions are factors
expressing in mass - or giving rise to mass.
However, you seem to be saying "yes": "mass [] does not effect through []
electromagnetic interactions" (regardless of level).
As properties of elementary particles, electric charge
and mass are orthogonal.. However, the field (electric,
magnetic, nuclear, ect) surrounding a particle contains
energy, E, and therefore, the field has mass, m,
according to E = m c^2. Since the field is at rest
WRT the point charge, the mass of the field gravitates
according to it's mass-energy.
Because the electron is considered to be elementary,
it can have no structure. The electron's electric charge
resides at a point. The energy of the electric field
generated by that point charge contributes to a portion
of the electrons observed mass.
quarks are also elementary point particles that carry
fields corresponding to both the electric and nuclear
forces. The energy of each field contributes to the
observed quark mass. The quark's mass is much
greater than that of an electron's because the energy
contained in the quark's nuclear field is much greater
than that of its electric field.
Peter Kinane
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 06:15:25 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:jaWdnScCSZnzOXjcRVn-iw@prairiewave.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs408j$5de$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3mf9$mfo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip old stuff]
[snip more stuff]
So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context of
"masses
always attract" - does not effect through, or consist of, or express,
or
feature electromagnetic interactions?
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by "effect through",
"express",
and "feature" here, but I would say yes.
Again, much as in points 1 and 2 above, I am implying that I expect that
mass is formed through (consists of, expresses or features - in effect,
mass
consists of- -features- -expresses- -effects through) electromagnetic
interactions. Or at least that electromagnetic interactions are factors
expressing in mass - or giving rise to mass.
However, you seem to be saying "yes": "mass [] does not effect through
[]
electromagnetic interactions" (regardless of level).
As properties of elementary particles, electric charge
and mass are orthogonal.. However, the field (electric,
magnetic, nuclear, ect) surrounding a particle contains
energy, E, and therefore, the field has mass, m,
according to E = m c^2. Since the field is at rest
WRT the point charge, the mass of the field gravitates
according to it's mass-energy.
Because the electron is considered to be elementary,
it can have no structure. The electron's electric charge
resides at a point. The energy of the electric field
generated by that point charge contributes to a portion
of the electrons observed mass.
quarks are also elementary point particles that carry
fields corresponding to both the electric and nuclear
forces. The energy of each field contributes to the
observed quark mass. The quark's mass is much
greater than that of an electron's because the energy
contained in the quark's nuclear field is much greater
than that of its electric field.
Ok, thank you. I may have a vague understanding of what you are saying. If I
may still go on, I speculatively propose for consideration, although it may
seem a repeat of what you said above, that such fields - such mass-fields
and compounds of them - are the force which is called "gravity". There are
various, shall we say, degrees of force of fields (- effectively, mass). Any
such field is obliged to reside at the, shall we say, degree which its
force - its mass-field - expresses. (For example, gas, water, rock reside
according to their "degrees of force of fields" or mass-fields, which also
includes their velocities, in interaction with each other).
In effect, "Gravity" (of- -between masses) may be a density multiplied by
velocity forces relationship.
Perhaps there is nothing original here - unless that there is a lesser or
different sense of "pull" and more of " field relationship effect", but with
the fields, at some level of micro-matter, interacting.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
12 Jan 2005 09:22:36 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs4f62$a74$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:jaWdnScCSZnzOXjcRVn-iw@prairiewave.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs408j$5de$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3mf9$mfo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip old stuff]
[snip more stuff]
So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context of
"masses
always attract" - does not effect through, or consist of, or
express,
or
feature electromagnetic interactions?
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by "effect through",
"express",
and "feature" here, but I would say yes.
Again, much as in points 1 and 2 above, I am implying that I expect
that
mass is formed through (consists of, expresses or features - in effect,
mass
consists of- -features- -expresses- -effects through) electromagnetic
interactions. Or at least that electromagnetic interactions are factors
expressing in mass - or giving rise to mass.
However, you seem to be saying "yes": "mass [] does not effect through
[]
electromagnetic interactions" (regardless of level).
As properties of elementary particles, electric charge
and mass are orthogonal.. However, the field (electric,
magnetic, nuclear, ect) surrounding a particle contains
energy, E, and therefore, the field has mass, m,
according to E = m c^2. Since the field is at rest
WRT the point charge, the mass of the field gravitates
according to it's mass-energy.
Because the electron is considered to be elementary,
it can have no structure. The electron's electric charge
resides at a point. The energy of the electric field
generated by that point charge contributes to a portion
of the electrons observed mass.
quarks are also elementary point particles that carry
fields corresponding to both the electric and nuclear
forces. The energy of each field contributes to the
observed quark mass. The quark's mass is much
greater than that of an electron's because the energy
contained in the quark's nuclear field is much greater
than that of its electric field.
Ok, thank you. I may have a vague understanding of what you are saying. If
I
may still go on, I speculatively propose for consideration, although it
may
seem a repeat of what you said above, that such fields - such mass-fields
and compounds of them - are the force which is called "gravity".
No "mass fields". Mass is a scalar. An electric field
possesses magnitude and direction as a function of
location in space and is represented by a vector.
Suppose that, at a given location in space, there is an
electric field represented by the vector, E. That electric
field is generated by a point charge located elsewhere in
space.
The energy density (Joules / meter^3), a scalar, at the
point of interest is proportional to the square of the
electric field strength, E^2. The mass density (Kg /
meter^3), also a scalar, is proportional to E^2 / c^2,
where c^2 is the speed of light squared.
Now, center a small sphere of volume, V (meter^3), on
the point of interest. The mass, m, within that small
sphere is then proportional to the energy density and
to the volume of the sphere:
m ~ V * (E / c)^2
A gravitational force field (a vector) emanates from that
small spherical volume in all directions. If you are a
distance, R, away from the sphere, due to gravitational
attraction, you'll be accelerated towards the sphere with
an acceleration, g, that's proportional to the mass, m,
contained within the sphere, and inversely proportional
to the square of the distance, R:
g = m * G / R^2 ~ [ V * (E / c)^2 ] * G / R^2
Where, G, is the universal gravitational constant .
So, due to the mass-energy density within a small
spherical volume element, wherein the electric field
strength is E, there will be a gravitational force on
you (towards the sphere that's proportional to the
square of the electric field strength, E^2, and that is
inversely proportional to the square of your distance,
R^2.
That's the gravitational force from one small volume
element. To get the toal gravitational force on you,
you have to sum-up all the little forces (direction and
magnitude) from a multitude of little adjacent spheres
that cover all of space where the electric field is finite.
Of course, you are in the electric field, and you would
feel the many orders of magnitude stronger direct
electrostatic force of that electric field if your body
possessed even a minute static electric charge (like
Tesla your hair might standup on end).
You may ask questions about this, but please, let's not
have any more hair-brained concoctions. OK ?
[old Man]
There are
various, shall we say, degrees of force of fields (- effectively, mass).
Any
such field is obliged to reside at the, shall we say, degree which its
force - its mass-field - expresses. (For example, gas, water, rock reside
according to their "degrees of force of fields" or mass-fields, which also
includes their velocities, in interaction with each other).
In effect, "Gravity" (of- -between masses) may be a density multiplied by
velocity forces relationship.
Perhaps there is nothing original here - unless that there is a lesser or
different sense of "pull" and more of " field relationship effect", but
with
the fields, at some level of micro-matter, interacting.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
13 Jan 2005 10:12:13 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:6NudnY4vioIddHjcRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs4f62$a74$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:jaWdnScCSZnzOXjcRVn-iw@prairiewave.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs408j$5de$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3mf9$mfo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Peter Kinane wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip old stuff]
[snip more stuff]
So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context
of
"masses
always attract" - does not effect through, or consist of, or
express,
or
feature electromagnetic interactions?
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by "effect through",
"express",
and "feature" here, but I would say yes.
Again, much as in points 1 and 2 above, I am implying that I expect
that
mass is formed through (consists of, expresses or features - in
effect,
mass
consists of- -features- -expresses- -effects through) electromagnetic
interactions. Or at least that electromagnetic interactions are
factors
expressing in mass - or giving rise to mass.
However, you seem to be saying "yes": "mass [] does not effect
through
[]
electromagnetic interactions" (regardless of level).
As properties of elementary particles, electric charge
and mass are orthogonal.. However, the field (electric,
magnetic, nuclear, ect) surrounding a particle contains
energy, E, and therefore, the field has mass, m,
according to E = m c^2. Since the field is at rest
WRT the point charge, the mass of the field gravitates
according to it's mass-energy.
Because the electron is considered to be elementary,
it can have no structure. The electron's electric charge
resides at a point. The energy of the electric field
generated by that point charge contributes to a portion
of the electrons observed mass.
quarks are also elementary point particles that carry
fields corresponding to both the electric and nuclear
forces. The energy of each field contributes to the
observed quark mass. The quark's mass is much
greater than that of an electron's because the energy
contained in the quark's nuclear field is much greater
than that of its electric field.
Ok, thank you. I may have a vague understanding of what you are saying.
If
I
may still go on, I speculatively propose for consideration, although it
may
seem a repeat of what you said above, that such fields - such
mass-fields
and compounds of them - are the force which is called "gravity".
No "mass fields". Mass is a scalar. An electric field
possesses magnitude and direction as a function of
location in space and is represented by a vector.
So, no more hair-brained concoctions:
Essentially, my theory is that, a field, (force) F, in interaction with
other bodies - planets or galaxies - consists of mass and direction; the sum
of the mass force and direction force of a field is the gravitational force,
G, which it acts upon other bodies. Perhaps that would be represented more
as mass (sitting there energy) plus energy with direction, GF = MF + VF.
This implicitly probably discounts the concept of "inertia". Also, it does
not attempt to express the force of energy of the forces - your work
probably takes care of that.
Suppose that, at a given location in space, there is an
electric field represented by the vector, E. That electric
field is generated by a point charge located elsewhere in
space.
Those two statements are probably the two that I can least conceptualise -
electric field generated by point charge located elsewhere?
The energy density (Joules / meter^3), a scalar, at the
point of interest is proportional to the square of the
electric field strength, E^2. The mass density (Kg /
meter^3), also a scalar, is proportional to E^2 / c^2,
where c^2 is the speed of light squared.
Now, center a small sphere of volume, V (meter^3), on
the point of interest. The mass, m, within that small
sphere is then proportional to the energy density and
to the volume of the sphere:
m ~ V * (E / c)^2
A gravitational force field (a vector) emanates from that
small spherical volume in all directions. If you are a
distance, R, away from the sphere, due to gravitational
attraction, you'll be accelerated towards the sphere with
an acceleration, g, that's proportional to the mass, m,
contained within the sphere, and inversely proportional
to the square of the distance, R:
g = m * G / R^2 ~ [ V * (E / c)^2 ] * G / R^2
Where, G, is the universal gravitational constant .
This seems to presume that I am "distance, R, away from the sphere" _and
inertial_. I am exploring the possibility that instead of that model perhaps
it is more a case of me as GF = MF + VF (and discounting the distance, R,
factor) in relationship with, if the above does not need alteration, m * G /
R^2 ~ [ V * (E / c)^2 ] * G / R^2.
Essentially, gravity expresses through causing different forces to cohere
with each other.
So, due to the mass-energy density within a small
spherical volume element, wherein the electric field
strength is E, there will be a gravitational force on
you (towards the sphere that's proportional to the
square of the electric field strength, E^2, and that is
inversely proportional to the square of your distance,
R^2.
That's the gravitational force from one small volume
element. To get the toal gravitational force on you,
you have to sum-up all the little forces (direction and
magnitude) from a multitude of little adjacent spheres
that cover all of space where the electric field is finite.
Of course, you are in the electric field, and you would
feel the many orders of magnitude stronger direct
electrostatic force of that electric field if your body
possessed even a minute static electric charge (like
Tesla your hair might standup on end).
You may ask questions about this, but please, let's not
have any more hair-brained concoctions. OK ?
[old Man]
There are
various, shall we say, degrees of force of fields (- effectively, mass).
Any
such field is obliged to reside at the, shall we say, degree which its
force - its mass-field - expresses. (For example, gas, water, rock
reside
according to their "degrees of force of fields" or mass-fields, which
also
includes their velocities, in interaction with each other).
In effect, "Gravity" (of- -between masses) may be a density multiplied
by
velocity forces relationship.
Perhaps there is nothing original here - unless that there is a lesser
or
different sense of "pull" and more of " field relationship effect", but
with the fields, at some level of [force], interacting.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
13 Jan 2005 04:56:16 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs6799$pu7$1@kermit.esat.net...
[snip]
So, no more hair-brained concoctions:
Essentially, my theory is that, a field, (force) F,
Why is there a word "force" in brackets in that sentence? What
purpose does that word serve there?
in interaction with
other bodies - planets or galaxies - consists of mass and direction;
What does "consists of mass and direction" mean?
the sum
of the mass force
What is a "mass force"?
and direction force
What is a "direction force"?
of a field is the gravitational force,
G, which it acts upon other bodies. Perhaps that would be
represented more
as mass (sitting there energy) plus energy with direction,
Energy is not a vector.
GF = MF + VF.
This implicitly probably discounts the concept of "inertia".
Why does that implicitly probably discount the concept of "inertia"?
Also, it does
not attempt to express the force of energy of the forces
What is meant by "the force of energy of the forces"?
- your work
probably takes care of that.
Suppose that, at a given location in space, there is an
electric field represented by the vector, E. That electric
field is generated by a point charge located elsewhere in
space.
Those two statements are probably the two that I can least
conceptualise -
electric field generated by point charge located elsewhere?
Yes. Elsewhere.
Are you familiar with the inverse square law of electroststics?
The energy density (Joules / meter^3), a scalar, at the
point of interest is proportional to the square of the
electric field strength, E^2. The mass density (Kg /
meter^3), also a scalar, is proportional to E^2 / c^2,
where c^2 is the speed of light squared.
Now, center a small sphere of volume, V (meter^3), on
the point of interest. The mass, m, within that small
sphere is then proportional to the energy density and
to the volume of the sphere:
m ~ V * (E / c)^2
A gravitational force field (a vector) emanates from that
small spherical volume in all directions. If you are a
distance, R, away from the sphere, due to gravitational
attraction, you'll be accelerated towards the sphere with
an acceleration, g, that's proportional to the mass, m,
contained within the sphere, and inversely proportional
to the square of the distance, R:
g = m * G / R^2 ~ [ V * (E / c)^2 ] * G / R^2
Where, G, is the universal gravitational constant .
This seems to presume that I am "distance, R, away from the sphere"
_and
inertial_.
What do you mean by "inertial"?
I am exploring the possibility that instead of that model perhaps
it is more a case of me as GF = MF + VF (and discounting the
distance, R,
factor) in relationship with, if the above does not need alteration,
m * G /
R^2 ~ [ V * (E / c)^2 ] * G / R^2.
What is the significance of the symbol "~" in that stuff above here?
Essentially, gravity expresses through causing different forces to
cohere
with each other.
What do you mean when you talk about forces cohering with each other?
What would happen if they did not cohere with each other?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
13 Jan 2005 07:09:36 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cs6uaf$36l$2@titan.btinternet.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs6799$pu7$1@kermit.esat.net...
Every concept I expressed needs, I suppose, development - as I am exploring
formulating a new model of ... ? (Big snip).
So, probably it is better to start anew and see what effects, rather than
address all of the points in the already posted context.
Let's start with a body which shall be the frame of reference. Now, this
body (has been around for a while and) infers, perhaps contrary to I.
Newton, that it has mass plus the energy of some momentum. So, its force, or
combined mass plus momentum, which is its energy, may be expressed as F (or
E) = M + V.
So, the FoR, F = M + V, would interact with other bodies. However, there is
a new (extra) feature to bodies, that of "structure level", S. Therefore,
the more complete FoR body is F = (M + V)S.
How various bodies cohere (rather than "attract"), either C or G, is
determined through the relationship of their Fs. C = F : F.
That would seem to leave the issue of selecting a standard of relationship
of mass to energy. My data on electromagnetism (etc.) is very limited, so E
= m c^2 may be good.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
14 Jan 2005 05:40:56 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs76na$3ui$1@kermit.esat.net...
I am exploring formulating a new model of ... ?
Let's start with a body which shall be the frame of reference. Now, this
body (has been around for a while and) infers that it has mass force plus
momentum force. So, such force, such combined mass plus momentum, may be
expressed as F = M + V.
The FoR, F = M + V, would interact with other bodies. However, there is an
extra feature to bodies, that of "structure level", S. Therefore, the more
complete FoR body is F = (M + V)S.
How various bodies cohere (rather than "attract"), C, is determined through
their relationship, C = F : F.
The concept of mass without momentum may not feature in this model. Also,
the model may not concern itself with the notion of the relationship of mass
to energy; energy probably expresses as force, through momentum and
structure of mass of bodies.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
15 Jan 2005 01:22:57 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs9lth$r69$1@kermit.esat.net...
I am exploring formulating a new model of ... ?
Let's start with a body which shall be the frame of reference. Now, this
body (has been around for a while and) infers that it has force, F,
consisting of mass force, m, plus momentum force, p, in the context of
developing a theory of coherence of bodies.
These conventional symbols may have some contextual role of employment: mass
(Kg), velocity (m/s), and momentum (Kg-m/s).
The FoR body, F = m + p, would interact with other bodies. However, there is
an extra feature to bodies, that of "structure level", s. Therefore, the
more complete expression of the FoR body is F = (m + p) and s.
How various bodies cohere (rather than "attract"), C, is determined through
their relationship, C = F : F.
This model may not concern itself with the relationship of mass to energy,
other than to say that energy force expresses through, and indeed as, mass,
momentum and structure of bodies, which bodies, in turn, can interact to
express other forms of structure and other forms of energy - other forms of
force, F.
The notion of structure, s, for now, remains undeveloped.
This leaves the idea of coherence force, C.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
16 Jan 2005 02:21:04 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:csbr5n$f9m$1@kermit.esat.net...
I am exploring formulating a new model of ... ?
Let's start with a body which shall be the frame of reference. Now, this
body (has been around for a while and) infers that it has force, F,
consisting of mass force, m, plus momentum force, p, in the context of
developing a theory of coherence of bodies.
These conventional symbols may have some contextual role of employment:
mass
(Kg), velocity (m/s), and momentum (Kg-m/s).
The FoR body, F = m + p, would interact with other bodies. However, there
is
an extra feature to bodies, that of "structure level", s. Therefore, the
more complete expression of the FoR body is F = (m + p) and s.
How various bodies cohere (rather than "attract"), C, is determined
through
their relationship, C = F : F.
This model may not concern itself with the relationship of mass to energy,
other than to say that energy force expresses through, and indeed as,
mass,
momentum and structure of bodies, which bodies, in turn, can interact to
express other forms of structure and other forms of energy - other forms
of
force, F.
The notion of structure, s, for now, remains undeveloped.
This leaves the idea of coherence force, C.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
In earlier posts, I used "V" as the rather arbitrarily selected symbol for
"momentum", so as to distinguish it from "mass", for which I was using the
symbol "M". However, above, in a moment of neglect of my suspicions, I
substituted "p" for "V", thereby making it more open to interpretation as
the conventional concept of "momentum", symbolised by "p".
So, I'm taking a closer look at "mass" relative to "momentum", and it is
almost unavoidable to use the currently employed symbols, m and p,
respectively.
I've been provided with these concepts and their respective symbols, and I
expect they are those conventionally employed:
** Energy (Joule), force (Newton), mass (Kg), velocity (m/s), and momentum
(Kg-m/s), have different physical dimensions. To add or equate them is
physically incorrect It's wrong !
The dimensionally correct equation for a body's energy, E, in terms of its
mass, m, and its momentum, p, is
E^2 = ( m * c^2)^2 + ( p * c )^2 **
Re "velocity (m/s)": The idea that velocity could be something divided by s
(speed) seems problematic; it would seem to imply that the greater the speed
of the mass the lesser its velocity. It would seem more accurate to say that
velocity is speed, v = s, and a force added- -applied to or acquired by the
mass, m + s.
Re, "momentum (Kg-m/s)": The idea that the momentum, p, of a mass could be
the weight of the mass divided by s (speed), thereby loosing momentum as
speed increases, seems counter intuitive to me. I would expect that an
increase of momentum involves the mass acquiring or being applied
force- -energy, thereby increasing from, for example, speed x to 2x, that,
in effect, P = Kg-m + s (speed force).
Re "E^2 = ( m * c^2)^2 + ( p * c )^2", which means E = mc^2: The
concepts, should I say, expressed, I fail to find rigourous. The equation is
so contorted and convoluted that analysis may be informative for readers:
Kinane: v = s, and c is the speed of E.
Einstein thinks of Ev as E/c.
Kinane:
Given: Mv = Ev or Ms = Es
Given: c is the speed of E
Ms = Ec
E = mc^2
Einstein:
Given: Mv = E/v
E = mc^2
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
A switch of discs, which the robot factory assembly-line installs, and from
the apparent culture of parrot training, may be in order. (Better call a
spade a spade).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
16 Jan 2005 06:33:15 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cseiut$dld$1@kermit.esat.net...
In earlier posts, I used "V" as the rather arbitrarily selected symbol for
"momentum", so as to distinguish it from "mass", for which I was using the
symbol "M". However, above, in a moment of neglect of my suspicions, I
substituted "p" for "V", thereby making it more open to interpretation as
the conventional concept of "momentum", symbolised by "p".
So, I'm taking a closer look at "mass" relative to "momentum", and it is
almost unavoidable to use the currently employed symbols, m and p,
respectively.
I've been provided with these concepts and their respective symbols, and I
expect they are those conventionally employed:
** Energy (Joule), force (Newton), mass (Kg), velocity (m/s), and
momentum
(Kg-m/s), have different physical dimensions. To add or equate them is
physically incorrect It's wrong !
The dimensionally correct equation for a body's energy, E, in terms of its
mass, m, and its momentum, p, is
E^2 = ( m * c^2)^2 + ( p * c )^2 **
Re "velocity (m/s)": The idea that velocity could be something divided by
s
(speed) seems problematic; it would seem to imply that the greater the
speed
of the mass the lesser its velocity. It would seem more accurate to say
that
velocity is speed, v = s, and a force added- -applied to or acquired by
the
mass, m + s.
Re, "momentum (Kg-m/s)": The idea that the momentum, p, of a mass could be
the weight of the mass divided by s (speed), thereby loosing momentum as
speed increases, seems counter intuitive to me. I would expect that an
increase of momentum involves the mass acquiring or being applied
force- -energy, thereby increasing from, for example, speed x to 2x, that,
in effect, P = Kg-m + s (speed force).
Re "E^2 = ( m * c^2)^2 + ( p * c )^2", which means E = mc^2: The
concepts, should I say, expressed, I fail to find rigourous. The equation
is
so contorted and convoluted that analysis may be informative for readers:
I forgot that it is "E^2 " and not "E", so my comment there is mistaken.
Above, I was mistaken in the meaning of the symbols "m/s".
Kinane: v = s, and c is the speed of E.
Einstein thinks of Ev as E/c.
This is now meaningless.
So, to start over, on the equation E = mc^2:
Einstein says: E has momentum E/c.
Apparently, this means "momentum, p = 0". The
problem is whether the concept makes any sense.
In any case, Einstein: Mv = E/c
So, if Mv means "mass * v", (mass at speed) and if this equals "E without
momentum" (E without mass or momentum) the conceptual rigour becomes even
more problematical.
Speculating further:
Kinane:
Given: Mv = Ev or Ms = Es
Given: c is the speed of E
- which is zero.
Ms = Ec
Let's make that Mv = Ec
Mv = zero (Ec)
E = mc^2
Einstein:
Given: Mv = E/v
E = mc^2
In any case, I'll drop the signature slogan (for now).
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
16 Jan 2005 03:55:16 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cseiut$dld$1@kermit.esat.net...
[snip]
You are drivelling
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
15 Jan 2005 09:19:56 AM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs9lth$r69$1@kermit.esat.net...
[snip]
Get stuffed.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
14 Jan 2005 12:18:37 AM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs76na$3ui$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cs6uaf$36l$2@titan.btinternet.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs6799$pu7$1@kermit.esat.net...
Every concept I expressed needs, I suppose, development - as I am
exploring
formulating a new model of ... ? (Big snip).
So, probably it is better to start anew and see what effects, rather than
address all of the points in the already posted context.
Let's start with a body which shall be the frame of reference. Now, this
body (has been around for a while and) infers, perhaps contrary to I.
Newton, that it has mass plus the energy of some momentum. So, its force,
or
combined mass plus momentum, which is its energy, may be expressed as F
(or
E) = M + V.
That equation makes no sense. Energy (Joule), force
(Newton), mass (Kg), velocity (m/s), and momentum
(Kg-m/s), have different physical dimensions. To add
or equate them is physically incorrect It's wrong !
The dimensionally correct equation for a body's energy,
E, in terms of its mass, m, and its mometum, p, is
E^2 = ( m * c^2)^2 + ( p * c )^2
Where "c" is the speed of light. Furthermore, Kinane is
incorrect about gravity. Only inertial energy, mc^2,
gravitates. Kinetic energy, ( p * c ) ^2, doesn't gravitate.
..
Kinane claims to have a new physical theory, but its
clear that he knows nothing of physics whatsoever.
Kinane displays delusions of competence. Kinane
is a Troll. Old Man isn't going to waste anymore time
on Kinane.
[Old Man]
Peter Kinane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Charge |
14 Jan 2005 04:54:24 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:EvGdnUlBGojc-XrcRVn-iA@prairiewave.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs76na$3ui$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cs6uaf$36l$2@titan.btinternet.com...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cs6799$pu7$1@kermit.esat.net...
As you are quite good at explain | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
