studiot

I seriously recommend more listening and less guessing. Of course it is possible for an atom to have extra electrons, that is how transistors work. exchemist mentioned metallic bonds, listen to what he has to say about them. Never? How do you explain positive ions then? Yes never. I have already told you that once an atom looses one or more electrons and remains an individual entity, it is called an ion. Sometimes atoms band together to form metallic masses via metallic bonds. In these circumstances, atoms loose their individuality forming a very very large 'molecule' that is basically the size of the lump of material. Each former atom contributes a standard number of electrons to a common pool of electrons in a so called 'band'. Impurities, either accidental or deliberate, can add an extra electron into the band. Arsenic or Phosphorus are added to the silicon of trnaistors to doe xactly this forming what is known as N-type material.

Unluckily that was not the only misconception in your sentence. For all the electrons under discussion: Electrons do not 'orbit around'. Atoms do not become 'positively charged'. Electrons are never 'not in the quantum levels of the atoms. The situation is much more complicated than this:-

Well we all make mistakes and I made a comical one here. I should have course said I didn't say anything about an electron atom with more electrons than protons, you did. I think that although your ideas are now moving in the right direction some serious misunderstandings still remain in your last post and need further work. I will however say +1 for admitting the mistake. But electrons are not expelled from the nucleus and the nucleus is always positive.

That's a really good idea. One suggestion. Try to avoid switching back and fore between a macroscopic (bulk) view and a microscopic (atomic) view. I didn't say anything about an electron with more electrons than protons, you did. Ions can be positive or negative and they can be formed from atoms (they are not then atoms and do not possss all the properties of the atoms they came from) or they may be combinations of atoms. The combinations may of course include atoms of sevaral different elements eg (CO3)2- ; (CN)- The situation can be even more complicated when a central positive ion is surrounded by negative ions called ligands for example six singly charged (CN)- cyanide ions can surround a doubly positive ferrous ion to form the quadruply negatively charged ligand complex (Fe(CN)6)4- https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch12/complex.php Even more complicated are non stoichiometric complex ions which appear to violate valency rules. Pauli is not actually broken but you need to bring in aditional otherwise non active orbitals to explain them. Titanium and Chromium ions are favourites for this https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9025.pdf

If you start from incorrect or overgeneral or poorly worded ideas you cannot hope to reach sensible conclusions. I have not offered ridicule (or red marks) in this thread, but have tried to help you tighten up your premises to the point where they might form a useful starting point and not require constant revision. For instance your definition of ions is false. There is no other word for it. You can buy a negative ion generator on Ebay or at a high street shop.

So 'atoms' includes 'molecules'. That certainly is a novel concept that yoy did not stat at the outset. And you did not reply to my comment about ions. I suggest you take a long hard look at your foundations and get your working definitions sorted out so people do not misunderstand what you mean to say.

Thank you. Unfortunately you have now introduced another technical term ie 'substance'. You have also implied there are substances not made of atoms. What about the other objects I referred to. I take it that by your definition of material substances other objects made of ions are not material ? Personally I regard electrons as material. I can weigh them, I can use them to knock down targets, I can weld with them, I can heat things up with them, I can ionise things with them I can stand things in their shadow and much more besides. Finally what about molecules? Most substances are actually made of molecules.

There are so many things wrong with the way you are developing this proposition that it's difficult to know where to start. So to start with your first sentence, I suppose it partly depends upon what you mean by .material', what you count as material. This is difficult since you are misusing several important and fundamental terms in your development. To start with all atoms are electrically neutral. Neutral means they do not interact with charged bodies in accordance with the laws of electrostatics that is no steady interbody electrostatic force is observable. Atoms can loose or gain one or more electrons and when they do so they become ions. They can also gain or loose one or more protons. When this happens, they may become charged ions or they may also loose the corresponding number of electrons to become different atoms. OK so we are now involving atoms, ions, protons, electrons. Which of these, if any, do you regards a 'material' ?

Thank you for your reply. I understood what you said. I was just pointing out that the use of the present tense of the verb to be instead of the future tense, is self contradictory and would be self contradictory if so used in the future. You have introduced probability. Too many folks misunderstand probability and the fact that probabilities of both one and zero are special and different from all other probability values. Since you wish to use a probability of 1 consider A Probability of 1 has three different meanings and it is encumbent on the user to specify which. 1) A probability of 1 states that some A has always happened in the past and must always happen in the future. 2) A probability of 1 states that the event has always happened in the past and is expected to happen in the future, as we have no better information. 3) A probability of 1 states that whatever has happened in the past our best guess is that it must (will) happen in the future. This should go a long way to answering the interesting 'philosopical problem' you raised.

Surely this is an oxymoron, planted firmly in the middle of the only question you have asked.

You have work to do on your magnets. I suggest you study Halback arrays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array You might be able to knock up a home made prototype using fridge magnets to study the mag fields. However remember that conventional electric motors work on somewhat similar princples and all of them have trouble starting because of symmetry. So they all have various arrangements to provide an initial impulse and then rely on mechanical inertia to take the rotor round to the next driving position.

'Earth' tends to be british terminology and 'ground' american terminology for the same thing. I'm sorry if I introduced that confusion into the thread. There is also separate symbol for chassis, as opposed to either earth or ground. Further an earth can be an AC earth or a DC earth or both in circuit theory. This is very common. Symbols also vary on this. http://lednique.com/ground-earth-chassis/

How is any of this relevant to your OP question ? None of it is at variance with what I said, though it may be a dangerous practice.

Without more details it is difficult to say more. The general phenomenon is called triboluminescence and reverse triboluminesce, the latter seems to be what you are describing. Here is a modern paper on generating sound via laser. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp034904t Look here for the photoacoustic effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoacoustic_effect

Well since you couldn't be bothered to reply to anyone in your earthing thread, which has nothing to do with displacement current and you don't seem to want to reply to comments in this one I see no purpose continuing. If there were any other previous threads I don't recall them.

Pipe (and other) flow is not a supportable analogy for electricity. However I do not disagree that considerable current does flow in some open circuits, for example lightning. But I did not read any further. Have you abandoned you previous electricity thread ?

I like this solidly subject for a Science website, instead of all that political claptrap. +1 I lke to distinguish three distince uses for an 'earth' in electricity. All three satisfy a common definition in electrical circuit theory. Note 'circuit theory' here refers configurations of electrical 'circuit elements', whether they contain a complete loop or not. 1) As a protective element. 2) As a refernce element for voltages. 3) As a shielding element against electromagnetic fields. All three uses can be described by a "single terminal element whose potential (voltage) does not change. regardless of the current input or output to that element." Note this is different from a voltage source which is a two terminal element. Of course such an element is an 'ideal element', like most other elements. So there are no perfect earths in real world practice, only better or worse approximations. I think this covers all your examples, and then some. Equally I see no reason for this to be a speculation but as a reasonable comment and soruce of discussion on everday practice.

Thank you for your reply. I suppose it all hangs on your definition of 'truth'. In Mathematics truth means 'consistent with the axioms'. Note that this does not mean 'derivable from the axioms'. Other disciplines employ different meanings. In Philosophy you can have irresistible forces and immovable objects. In Physics you can't have these things. You also need to beware of differences in terminology. You used the word 'ideal', so beloved of ancient Greek philosophers. In Physics this means possessing certain specific properties as in ideal gas or ideal conductor. But in Mathematics, an ideal is a particular algebraic structure which has even more variation because you may have a left ideal or a right ideal !.

Nonsense. It collapsed a long time ago.

Since you like latin/french derivations and asses here is what the french ass herder said about the difference between the words etre and suivre. Je ne suis pas ce que je suis, si je suis ce que je suis, je ne suis pas ce que je suis.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that there is at least one further meaning and parts of speech for 'wind', after all it's what roads in Somerset do.

Another way to look at this is to take E = mc2 and combine it with E = hf to obtain f = mc2 / h In words The wave function of a state with energy E vibrates at a frequency given by this equation.

Just to add a little to swansont's post (+1) @kba I advise you look at Earnshaw's theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem This classical theorem applies to systems with centres of charge (gravitational, electric, magnetic) and the field interactions between them. It basically states that for any system with two or more poles, rest is an unstable state so such a system must be in motion. But it does not state that the field or the interactions are caused by the motion.

Nonsense. Science was sufficiently advanced for Cavendish to measure the gravitational attraction of stationary bodies as small as a few kg placed near each other before 1800.

I don't see any good reason for welcoming a new member inthis way so I am adding a reversal to the negative vote. That does not mean in any way that I agree with kba's proposition. If is a very very big word. Why should the gravity of the Sun have changed significantly, or indeed at all ? Where is the evidence supporting this. A couple of comments. Instead of resurrecting a long dead thread from an obvious crank I suggest you start your own discussion. (Talk to a moderator and ask to split this off) In suggesting this I am doing you the service of assuming you are amenable to rational discussion. You will need to take into account that any change in gravity will have affected many things, not only the dinosaurs. All of these things will have left an evidential trail. And we have found no such evidence to date. In fact proper evidence of the most probable sequence of events was released earlier this year from the Dakota dig and 15 year investigation.