Jump to content
MavricheAdrian

Electric charge – a different approach

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Regarding the second statement(In atomic physics there are no real observations), I mentioned that at the atomic level we use uncertainty, probability, disturbance, which shows that we have no certainties of the real observation.

!

Moderator Note

Quantum theory is perhaps the best and most accurately tested theory ever created.

If you repeat nonsense like this, the thread will be closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

First of all, I apologize, because English is not my native language.

Now I understand what you wanted to say....In my native language, inflation and expansion have the same meaning. Even in the link you put we find "...inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space..." ....I missed that one "exponential", although in the link sent by you, reference is also made to "Eternal inflation", this means that, in this case, it can be confused with the expansion of the universe. 

 

I do mea culpa, and I rectify, saying that when I referred to inflation, I equated it with expansion of the universe.

Therefore, where I wrote inflation, I thought of the expansion of the universe

Thanks for the clarification! I suspected that expansion of universe was intended, that's why I stubbornly kept asking. The words have similar meaning over here as well, care must be taken so the correct physical concept is referenced. I'll read your proposed idea again using expansion wherever inflation is stated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 10:41 PM, studiot said:
Quote

Thank you for your response.

Quote

I thank you for your kindness and patience to answer me!

Quote

 

Please do not answer in that fashion as the quote function on this site cannot handle it properly.

Quote

I'm sorry, I can't get used to the tools of this forum. Please be patient, and I will succeed

 

Quote

So please separate your words from those of others as in the examples in this thread.

Quote

Please be patient!

Quote

 

Which directly contradicts your failed answer to this

Quote

I'm sorry, but I don't see where is the contradiction between the two statements. When I said "I have not yet extended the model to the atomic level", I wanted to say, that I did not extend (yet) the model at the ion level ("Two platinum ions exert exactly the same mutual repulsive force as two hydrogen ions" as you asked my). When I gave the example of the boat, I was referring to the subatomic particles. Therefore there is no contradiction.

Quote

Can you draw one of your diagrams to explain how either or peferably both these forces are generated?

Quote

Repulsion between a proton and another proton, I have already explained in the chapter "Completion of the study". If I have not been explicit enough, I will try to imagine another example.You mean " Presence of Neutrons inside the nucleus merely weakens the repulsive between the protons by increasing the size (radius) of the nucleus without adding to the quantity of charge present in the nucleus. The increase in the radius of nucleus increases the average seperation between proton pairs thereby decreasing the replusive force."?(I apologize for the copy paste, but my English is not good, and it was faster).If that's not the case, please tell me so I can give you the answer. Please give me a source

About repulsion between a proton and a neutron, in reality it does not exist effective. It's not like that? You have other information, which I did not find. 

Quote

 

I respectfully suggest you find out what has already been discovered over the past couple of centuries of human investigation into electrical phenomena, instead of guessing.

Quote

Thank you for the advice. I read as much as I can, in physics you always have something new to learn. It's so much information, that may be escaped me something.

 

Do you know what the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron actually is ?

You say this

There have been heated arguments here as a result of this with members being accused of deliberately falsifying or misreporting the words of others.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks for the clarification! I suspected that expansion of universe was intended, that's why I stubbornly kept asking. The words have similar meaning over here as well, care must be taken so the correct physical concept is referenced. I'll read your proposed idea again using expansion wherever inflation is stated.

 

Thanks for your advice and understanding

 

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks for the clarification! I suspected that expansion of universe was intended, that's why I stubbornly kept asking. The words have similar meaning over here as well, care must be taken so the correct physical concept is referenced. I'll read your proposed idea again using expansion wherever inflation is stated.

 

 

I apologize, I cannot answer separately. I can't find the right tools

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I apologize, I cannot answer separately. I can't find the right tools

Edited 19 minutes ago by MavricheAdrian

You might want to try the quote function in the sandbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First comment, your paper says 

Quote

different masses have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field) [2] [4];

That does not sound correct. It can only be approximately valid for small masses moving in the gravitational field of a large mass. Example; a small masses will accelerate towards earth at 1g. But replace the small mass with a large mass, such as Jupiter. I do not think the result will be that Jupiter accelerates towards earth at 1g. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 2:20 AM, Ghideon said:

First comment, your paper says 

That does not sound correct. It can only be approximately valid for small masses moving in the gravitational field of a large mass. Example; a small masses will accelerate towards earth at 1g. But replace the small mass with a large mass, such as Jupiter. I do not think the result will be that Jupiter accelerates towards earth at 1g. 

 

It's about gravitational acceleration. These are the conclusions introduced by Galileo Galilei, following some of his famous experiments, on an inclined plane and in  famous tower from Pisa.

These conclusions were taken over by Newton, and introduced by Einstein in General Relativity.  This is how it is used in all published materials.

In fact, the acceleration is mutual, because they attract each other, but the force of attraction is greater in the case of the larger body. This means that we will only see the movement of the smaller body and the bigger one. 

In your case, we will visualize the acceleration of the Earth towards Jupiter, but the rule will be preserved "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration".

It's not my rule, I didn't introduce it, and it was verified.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MavricheAdrian said:

It's not my rule, I didn't introduce it, and it was verified.

You are discussing different small masses pulled by one large specific mass (earth). It is not a general rule that is valid for any mass.

The formula I know of is [math]g= \frac{GM}{ r^{2} }[/math]. Can you show how different masses M can have the same gravitational acceleration g (for a given radius r)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

It's about gravitational acceleration. These are the conclusions introduced by Galileo Galilei, following some of his famous experiments, on an inclined plane and in  famous tower from Pisa.

These conclusions were taken over by Newton, and introduced by Einstein in General Relativity.  This is how it is used in all published materials.

In fact, the acceleration is mutual, because they attract each other, but the force of attraction is greater in the case of the larger body. This means that we will only see the movement of the smaller body and the bigger one. 

In your case, we will visualize the acceleration of the Earth towards Jupiter, but the rule will be preserved "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration".

It's not my rule, I didn't introduce it, and it was verified.

 

 

I haven't replied to your previous post because I cannot separate the quotes from your replies.

But you seem to have this under control here.

Rest assured that everybody finds the input editor here a real nuisance.

So well done for coming to terms with it.

 

 

As to the content of your post you seem to misunderstand some basic Physics.

 

The (gravitational) force between two bodies is equal and opposite. 

But yes it has less noticeable effect on a larger body.

 

 

Galileo's comment (although he did not talk about acceleration) was that the acceleration felt by different small bodies towards a very very much larger one is the same.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 10:24 PM, Ghideon said:

 

You are discussing different small masses pulled by one large specific mass (earth). It is not a general rule that is valid for any mass.

The formula I know of is g=GMr2 . Can you show how different masses M can have the same gravitational acceleration g (for a given radius r)?

 

The Generalized Relativity Theory states that it is a general rule. Now if you want to challenge it, I have nothing against.

Well what can I demonstrate, you have already put mathematical formula. The formula put forward by you shows that any body gains an acceleration that depends only on the larger body mass, does not depend on the body mass. 

Now about the acceleration that would give Earth to Jupiter, here comes the inertia, which is even greater as the mass grows. As the mass of the Earth is smaller than that of Jupiter, it means that it will act with a smaller force to Jupiter. Therefore, we can say that Jupiter "wins", acting with greater force over the Earth, which means that the Earth actually falls to Jupiter. 

I don't know if I made myself understood. I will do everything in my power to make myself understood. Thank you for understanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I don't know if I made myself understood.

Perhaps you and Ghideon are talking about different things  ???

 

Consider three bodies A, B and C.

They have masses mA, mB and mC all different with mA>> mB >mC

 1) The force of gravity exerted on B by A is equal to the force of gravity exerted on A by B,

2) But this force is different from the force between A and C or between C and A

3) However the acceleration of B and of C towards A are equal. (at the same distance apart)

 

I think you are talking about (1) and (2)

Ghideon is talking about (3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 10:52 PM, studiot said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

Perhaps you and Ghideon are talking about different things  ???

 

Consider three bodies A, B and C.

They have masses mA, mB and mC all different with mA>> mB >mC

 1) The force of gravity exerted on B by A is equal to the force of gravity exerted on A by B,

2) But this force is different from the force between A and C or between C and A

3) However the acceleration of B and of C towards A are equal. (at the same distance apart)

 

I think you are talking about (1) and (2)

Ghideon is talking about (3)

The rule is general, that's why it's called Generalized Relativity Theory. However, as mentioned above, the inertia intervenes. It's like in a game of power,  wins who has greater force, and as each body acts on the other body with a force directly proportional to his mass,  gains the larger body, which acts with a greater force. 

I don't know if I made myself understood. I will do everything in my power to make myself understood. Thank you for understanding

On 9/10/2019 at 10:52 PM, studiot said:

 

I haven't replied to your previous post because I cannot separate the quotes from your replies.

But you seem to have this under control here.

Rest assured that everybody finds the input editor here a real nuisance.

So well done for coming to terms with it.

I still have difficulty using the "quote"

 

As to the content of your post you seem to misunderstand some basic Physics.

 

The (gravitational) force between two bodies is equal and opposite. 

If the "force between two bodies is equal and opposite", as you say, then, these bodies would reject each other. As I know the force acting between bodies is F = k * m1m2/ r2, and is not "equal and opposite". 

But yes it has less noticeable effect on a larger body.

Natural...

 

Galileo's comment (although he did not talk about acceleration) was that the acceleration felt by different small bodies towards a very very much larger one is the same.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

Perhaps you and Ghideon are talking about different things  ???

Let me repeat this and underline the word different.

You misunderstand the word general.

For instance the general theory of heat engines is applicable to steam engines, petrol engines, gas engines and diesel engines, but not to electric engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could simply be a language* issue, @studiot could be completely right, we maybe talk about different things. Here are the full set of details behind my reasoning, all my possible mistakes and misinterpretations included, hopefully any misunderstandings can be removed.

Statement:

On 9/2/2019 at 8:34 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

different masses have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field)

different masses means any masses; The statement is general so it must hold for any mass, not just small masses compared to some large mass.
have the same gravitational acceleration means there is one acceleration that someone/something have or share with something else. 

different masses have the same gravitational acceleration I interpret as
different bodies will, regardless of their mass, generate identical gravitational fields. This is not true according to equation [math]g= G\frac{M}{ r^{2} } [/math]

So let’s try another interpretation:

different bodies will, regardless of mass, accelerate identically due to gravitational acceleration generated by some other body. This seems compatible with Galileo reference. 

But OP state it moves identically in the field. So I interpret OP's statement as two bodies affected by acceleration in one shared gravitational field. With other words, when looking at the one gravitational field generated by two bodies they will both move towards each other. The larger mass will not be stationary. I’ll try some math:

Two masses are located on the x-axis, to the right of the origin, with mass [math]m_{a}[/math] at [math]x_{a}[/math] and [math]m_{b}[/math] at  [math]x_{b}[/math], with [math]x_{b} > x_{a}[/math] and positive x direction being to the right. 

[math]F_{ab}=G \frac{ m_{a}  m_{b} }{( x_{a}- x_{b} )^{2} }  = m_{a} {\ddot{x}}_{a}[/math]

[math]F_{ba}=-F_{ab}=-G \frac{ m_{a}  m_{b} }{( x_{a}- x_{b} )^{2} } = m_{b}  {\ddot{x}}_{b}[/math]

Accelerations then are

[math] {\ddot{x}}_{a}=G \frac{   m_{b} }{( x_{a}- x_{b} )^{2} }[/math]

[math] {\ddot{x}}_{b}=G \frac{   m_{a} }{( x_{a}- x_{b} )^{2} }[/math]

Subtract

[math]{\ddot{x}}_{b}-{\ddot{x}}_{a}=   \frac{ d^{2}}{d t^{2} }( x_{b}- x_{a} )=  -G \frac{ m_{b} }{( x_{a}- x_{b} )^{2} }-G \frac{   m_{a} }{( x_{a}- x_{b} )^{2} }=-G \frac{ m_{a}+m_{b} }{( x_{a}- x_{b}  )^{2} }[/math]

Change variables, let the distance r between masses be xa-xb:

[math]\ddot{r}=-G \frac{   m_{a}+m_{b} }{r^{2} }[/math]

Hence, looking at different masses in gravitational acceleration they do not move identically in the gravitational field. The acceleration seems to depend on both masses. Different masses seem to cause a different acceleration and different movement in the gravitational field.
This may not be what OP intended.
  

*) Or a calculation issue on my part, that is always an option.


 

Edited by Ghideon
missing sentence. Replaced you with OP to avoid confusion with other members participating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 11:27 PM, Ghideon said:

we maybe talk about different things

Even talking about the same thing.

Look what Albert Einstein says in  his book "Relativity" translated by Bruno Cermignani  "Relativita" (Rome 1952):

(I will do the English translation)

"....Different from the electric and the magnetic field, the gravitational field benefits from a remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance in the following. Bodies that move under the unique influence of a gravitational field it receives an acceleration that does not depend at all neither of what material is and nor the physical condition of the body in question. For example, a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall exactly the same in a gravitational field (in vacuum) when they are left to fall or a resting state or at the same initial speed.....

However, as is known from experience, for a given gravitational field the acceleration must always be the same, regardless of the nature and state of the body, then the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass must also be the same for all bodies. With an appropriate choice of units, we can make this ratio equal to one unit. We now have the following law: the gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass..."

On 9/12/2019 at 11:27 PM, Ghideon said:

have the same gravitational acceleration means there is one acceleration that someone/something have or share with something else

how to mean "have the same" "share with something else"? 

If you say that two people have the same type of pants, does that mean they share the same pants? I understand that they have the same pants, meaning each one has a pair that are the same.

On 9/12/2019 at 11:27 PM, Ghideon said:

different masses have the same gravitational acceleration

Does not mean that the masses generate the same gravitational field. I don't know where you got this from. I said that they (in the sense that it acquires) the same acceleration, not that it generates the same acceleration. 

On 9/12/2019 at 11:27 PM, Ghideon said:

different bodies will, regardless of mass

It is not a repetition? When you say "different bodies", it is not sub-understands that they are different and as masses? Being different, it is understood and as a mass.

 

On 9/12/2019 at 11:27 PM, Ghideon said:

accelerate identically due to gravitational acceleration generated by some other body

Sound a little about.....

In my language, it sounds good as I wrote, but I can transform it, something like the one in Einstein's book:

Different bodies (under the unique influence of a gravitational field) have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field.

Now it's more English, it's more explicit? ....I hope

I appreciate this forum because they are only relevant observations...

 

P.S. I succeed (by mistake)to understand the tools of this forum. Thank you all for your understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Does not mean that the masses generate the same gravitational field. I don't know where you got this from. I said that they (in the sense that it acquires) the same acceleration, not that it generates the same acceleration. 

I got it from trying to understand your description. And since it is tricky to understand it I provided math to highlight possible misunderstandings. Can you provide an explanation that includes the math required to show how your idea works? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you provide an explanation that includes the math required to show how your idea works? 

Of course I want to accompany it with a mathematical description. I'm working on this ... this part is harder...but I'm not quit

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Of course I want to accompany it with a mathematical description. I'm working on this ... this part is harder...

You could start by providing the equation you use for each of the following two statements:

On 9/2/2019 at 8:34 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

- different masses have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field) [2] [4];
- different masses (the electron and the proton) have the same electrical charge (as a value) [1];

I suppose equations from mainstream theories can be used here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you provide an explanation that includes the math required to show how your idea works? 

I did the theoretical part (theoretical-philosophical), and I wouldn't mind if someone built the math part. There are a lot of examples of collaborations, in which one did the theoretical part, and another one the mathematical part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I did the theoretical part (theoretical-philosophical), and I wouldn't mind if someone built the math part. There are a lot of examples of collaborations, in which one did the theoretical part, and another one the mathematical part.

A theoretical treatise in modern physics would be mathematical. What this reads as; "I've made some stuff up and want someone to do all the hard work".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

"I've made some stuff up and want someone to do all the hard work"

Seriously? You try to write a mathematical formula without a good theory. Not even F =m*a it would not make sense, if there was no theory behind it, to explain where these terms came from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Different bodies (under the unique influence of a gravitational field) have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field.

How many bodies does the description above include? Two different bodies under influence of the gravity of a third? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ghideon said:

 

How many bodies does the description above include? Two different bodies under influence of the gravity of a third? 

It does have any importance how many bodies? Does not matter. I wrote this just to show the similarities between the two physical fields. It doesn't matter how many bodies they are. I just wanted to show that "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge, to justify the description of the electric field, in the same way as the gravitational field, namely, to give it a form which will be described by space-time geometry. Therefore it does not matter how many bodies are. Please see the first paragraph of "Background of the study".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I just wanted to show that "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge

 

But this is not true.

 

1) For gravitational  attraction the force depends upon the mass and is independent of any charge.

2) For electric attraction the force depends upon the charge and is independent of any mass.

 

3) However for both the acceleration depends only upon the mass since acceleration = Force/mass.

 

That is you must first calculate the force between the objects, then calculate the resulting acceleration, not the other way round.

 

I believe it was this thread where I have already pointed out that the electrostaic force between say a lithium ion and a chlorine ion is the same as the force between a cesium ion and a chlorine ion.

But the acceleration imparted to the lithium ion by the chlorine ion is 19 times a great as the acceleration imparted to the cesium ion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Seriously? You try to write a mathematical formula without a good theory. Not even F =m*a it would not make sense, if there was no theory behind it, to explain where these terms came from. 

F = ma IS the theory.

27 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

It does have any importance how many bodies? 

Of course. Because gravity is purely attractive.

So you can say a spaceship is attracted to the Earth by gravity. And when it travels to the Moon, it will also be attracted to that. And the Moon will be attracted to the Earth.

That doesn't work with electric charge. If the spaceship is attracted to th Earth, then they must have opposite charge. If the spaceship is also attracted to the Moon, then they must have opposite charge. That means that the Moon will have the same charge as the Earth and they will repel one another. And so the Moon will fly off into space.

Gravity and electric charge are completely different for this, and many other, reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Gravity and electric charge are completely different

Forgive my niggle, but there are similarities as well as differences.

But they are most certainly not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.