What actually is 'charge'?

[Michael V]

tharkun,

My apologies, I must have misunderstood the post. I thought you were arguing that gravity was not an acceleration but a force. Forces and accelerations are measured in different units and some argue that gravity is a force rather than an acceleration.

Err, I am arguing that gravity is a force. g is not gravity. g is the acceleration due to gravity. An acceleration is due to a force - in this case the effect that produces the force is called gravity - so effectively, the force is gravity. The acceleration is most certainly not gravity, it is the acceleration due to the force that is gravity.

And how do you know that it is “opposite the physical process”? There is no way you could possibly know this, only assume it.

Fair point, except that....

You have experimentally falsified every other possible mechanism for gravity?

No, but there are no other possible mechanisms....are there?, If there are other possible mechanisms that you know of, could you would you, please list them.

How does a ‘random particle field’ produce attraction?

The method of material particle field gravity is well established - search on Nicolas Fatio. Fatio wasn't quite correct, but the principle is sound. Mechanical "attraction" is a physical impossibility - gravity is a push.

sitting on the rocket pad with 1g pulling down

That should be pushing down. Pulling would be a physical impossibility.

both rely on structural rigidity of the ship to convey the force by way of the sub-atomic particles.

No, gravity acts on mass, not objects. Gravity acts on physical entities with mass - the only physical entities with mass in the rocket-ship are protons, neutrons and electrons. Gravity does not know that they have combined in atomic/molecular structures to form a spaceship - it can only act on the mass particles themselves. As you say F=ma and the F, the force that is gravity, causes m, the mass, to accelerate. F is proportional to the mass, so that all masses accelerate at the same rate - you may confirm this by taking a hammer and a feather to the Moon, where unaffected by atmosphere, they accelerate at the same rate.
F comes from F=GMM/r2. More correctly that equation should be F = M1√G . M2√G / r2.

Of course, the structural integrity of the ship is a function of the gravity and charge interactions between the sub-atomic particles, but nevertheless, they are all also subject to the gravitational interactions with other masses, such as Earth.

Gravity is an acceleration that causes forces, but is not a force itself.

An acceleration that causes a force, um, err? Collision, deceleration on one object and acceleration of the object is force! Mass with velocity and a second mass, with or without velocity, in collision, is required to generate force. Acceleration is a necessary component of the process, but is not a pre-requisite. In fact acceleration can ONLY be caused by the deceleration of another object and a transfer of momentum through collision. Force is the process by which objects are decelerated and accelerated. Mechanics of motion are quite unambiguous on this point - an accelerating object can only be accelerating is a force is being applied - acceleration is not the cause of the force. It could be argued that force is caused by deceleration through collision; semantics allows for it, but there is no case for saying that acceleration causes force, since force is the pre-requisite for acceleration.

Newton’s Gravitational equation is a unified field equation and doesn’t define solo gravity (which is why it looks so much like the Coulomb equation – both contain charge and gravity combined).

Agreed, but no doubt with some differences of detail.

Since accelerations are dependent only on distances, and gravity is an acceleration, gravity must also only be dependent on distances. The mass applies to the density of the charge field and not gravity.

A physically occurring acceleration is dependent on force and mass, F=ma, or have you changed your mind. Distance combines with time to calculate an acceleration via observation of motion, but the motion must have had a cause, and acceleration is defined as a change of motion over a duration. The only possible cause for a change of motion is force.

The Equivalence Principle is correct as Einstein conceived it; there is no difference between a dynamic 1g acceleration up or a static 1g acceleration down.

Again, this assumption is based on gravity not having a physical cause. Since all effects have a cause (including acceleration), then we must assume that the principle of equivalence is not valid.

Michael

[querious]

Assuming a separation of 2 proton radii, the gravitational attractive force between 2 protons is only about 6 X 10^-35 N, while the repulsive electrical force is about 75 N.

I would be grateful if you would be so kind as to explain how you derived those values. Despite my assertions below, I am genuinely most interested in the exact method of your equational calculations.

It's just the standard force equation for gravity: F=GMp2/d2
6.6726E-011 * 1.67262E-027^2 / 1.754E-015^2 = 6.06780 x 10-035 N

and for the electric force:
8987551787 * 1.602176462E-019^2 / 1.754E-15^2 = 75 N

There are many disastrous superstitions presently paraded by the (un)scientific establishment as "fact". Amongst the very worst is: The Newtonian gravitational constant is valid at the sub-atomic level. (...) Why, oh why, oh why, do intelligent people allow themselves to believe that the Newtonian gravitational constant is valid at the sub-atomic level, where the mass density that gravity can actually act upon is so much larger.

So gravity gets (alot!) stronger at sub-atomic distances, but the electric force doesn't?

Everything that happens is a result of mass-in-motion-and-collision. All forces are the result of interaction between physical substance.
What actually is 'charge'?:
Charge is a result of the physical emission of physical sub-particles from physical electrons and protons.

Let me try to clarify things a bit: That was entire point of my 1st post! Now, don't those emitted sub-particles have to carry MOMENTUM to convey a force? With this in mind, please reread my 1st post carefully.

Dave

[Michael V]

querious Dave,

Sorry mate, you confused me. You said 2 proton radii, but used proton diameter in your calcs. I am now un-muddled, thanks.

So gravity gets (alot!) stronger at sub-atomic distances, but the electric force doesn't?

Yes, it does, but the strong force is not Coulomb's force. wiki says "The force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 1 femtometer (fm) between their centres, but rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At very short distances less than 0.7 fm, it becomes repulsive". Supposedly, the strong force is about 100 times stronger than Coulomb's force. I've found at least one site that quotes 137 times, which would be nice, so I'll use that. ! neutron radius and 1 proton radius is just under 2x10-15m, so I'll use that as the distance between centres.
F = (k . e2 / (2x10-15)2 ) * 137 = 7903.8 N

then using F = GPN. MP. MN / (2x10-15)2 (where MP is proton mass, MN is neutron mass)

so, GPN = 7903.8 / (MP. MN / (2x10-15)2

GPN, the proton-neutron gravitational "constant" is 1.129x1028

In actuality the gravitational co-efficient should apply to each mass, so the Newtonian G should be √G, 8.17x10-6. Protons are about twice as dense as neutrons, so G will be greater for the proton than the neutron, but the average will √GPN, 1.062x1014. I have also previously calculated that √GeP, the electron proton gravitational interaction at the Bohr radius to be 3.487x103

Obviously, the proton and neutron are pushed together by the gravitational effect. Given the chance though, proton charge will readily separate protons. Neutrons provide a barrier against proton-to-proton charge. Neutrons are 1.26 times wider than protons, so if the protons are separated from the neutrons by a small amount the proton charge will come to bear. (keep in mind that these diagrams are only 2D, so a little imagination is required)

Now, don't those emitted sub-particles have to carry MOMENTUM to convey a force?

Absolutely agreed: mass x velocity -> real physical stuff interacting physically.

With this in mind, please reread my 1st post carefully.

Pardon me, I will study your first post more carefully. Cheers

Michael

[querious]

Obviously, the proton and neutron are pushed together by the gravitational effect.

Coming up with your own pet theory to describe why nucleons cling may be lots of fun, but it's also lots of fun to discover what real scientists have been trying to figure for the past 50 years regarding this now pretty well understood residual strong force.

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but this pet theory would really hit the rocks when applied to the actual quarks within the proton, where the masses are much smaller (like <1%), but the electrical charges are still 2/3e & 1/3e.

Also, your idea of gravity as the nuclear force would result in super-massive nuclei, since there's no reason for the G force to fall off a cliff at a certain distance. As the nucleus got more massive, it would attract even more nuclei. But the residual strong force can explain the drop-off with distance that keeps nuclei limited to a certain range. Since it doesn't become stronger with more nucleons, once the buildup of electrical repulsion reaches a certain threshold the residual strong force can't overcome it anymore. Hence the limit on nuclear mass. But your theory already has G stronger than the electrical force, and we know G is purely additive, so what would place a limit on nuclear size, under your theory?

Dave

[Michael V]

querious Dave,

the actual quarks within the proton

"actual quarks", as in actual fairies at the bottom of the garden. Quarks DO NOT EXIST, have not been detected in any way or form, they are complete and utter intellectual and mathematical bullshit. None of the so called particles supposedly discovered in accelerators are real particles that exist as real particles doing the job that they were invented for. Conceptually, QED and QCD is a colossal pile of steaming shite. Billions and billions of dollars spent, has been spent on pure invention. Protons used to have a property of matter referred to as charge. Realising that such a property was bullshit, they attempted to sweep it under the carpet with the undeniable invention of quarks. Now the proton is not "covered" in bullshit, it is "full" of bullshit.

where the masses are much smaller (like <1%), but the electrical charges are still 2/3e & 1/3e.

Are you kidding me? quarks inside a proton with electric magic?

The suggestion that "real" scientists have some kind of intellectual or insightful advantage is nonsense. That they are paid handsomely for the crap they spew does not, in my opinion, lend any additional credibility to their theoretical whimsy. Real scientists spent hundreds of years putting planets into circular orbits. Real scientists say that light is electro-magnetic. Real scientists spend a billion dollars a year investigating magnetic reconnection. Real scientists spend 2 billion dollars a year looking for neutrinos, and then for neutrinos changing flavour. I have an enormous amount of faith in their cognitive abilities, but I have no faith with what they do with it.

Einstein (the patent clerk, not the real scientist, he didn't become a real scientist until later on) invented SR to solve a problem that didn't exist and in the process ushered in the end of physics as a scientific discipline to be replaced by Modern Physics that is not the study of physical processes. So now real scientists spend 10 billion dollars a year trying to prove that the big bang theory is not a huge load of shit, and they are struggling. Real scientists spend 10 billion dollars to build a wonderful technological marvel to find a Higgs boson from the Higgs field. Real scientists spend 5 billion dollars a year studying black holes and all the glorious emissions that come from these mathematically invented constructs. How about billions a year spent on the study of dark matter and dark energy: real? scientists?


The reason that the strong force, the gravitational attraction between nucleons, drops off a cliff at a certain distance, is proton charge. Once the protons get line of sight past the neutrons, they repel - at that distance, repulsive charge overcomes the attractive effect of gravitation. There is no electrical force involved, there is no such thing as electrical force. Charge is kinetic, gravity is kinetic. Both are the result of a randomly moving particle field that interacts with the nucleons. Gravity is purely a function of the field density (the spatial density of real physical quantum aether particles with mass, velocity and momentum) and the amount of interaction those particles have with the proton and neutron systems. I say system, because thinking of a proton as a hard surfaced sphere is making a huge assumption about proton structure and it is also dumbing down the interactive operation of the field with the proton.

The effect of two charge emitting protons in very close proximity is that the charge from proton adds to the aethereal particle flux of the other, thus increasing its own charge emission. The exchange of charge particles between very close protons is a runaway positive feedback mechanism, sufficient in magnitude to overcome the gravitational force that is pushing them together. Electrons subject to an increased particle flux are unable to increase their charge emission to get rid of the extra mass, so it is absorbed until it is eventually dumped en masse as a "frequency photon". Protons do not emit photons, they simply increase their charge emission. Coulomb's (the "electrical") force does not apply - the forces involved exceed Coulomb's force by 2 orders or magnitude. Protons in un-barriered proximity will exceed Coulomb's force by 100 times - perhaps if this is too difficult a concept to understand or believe, we might fall back on the oh so sensible suggestion of real scientists that some virtual gluons are blinking in and out of existence.

Nuclei can only build by organising the relative position of neutrons and protons such that no two protons have line of sight of each other. The shape and size of the resulting nucleus dictates the mass density and the mass density and size in turn dictates the gravitational effect. As nuclei get larger more and more neutrons are required to "cover the gaps" that separate the mutual bombardment of protons. This inevitably results in neutrons "on the edge" of the nucleus. A neutron is not a fundamental particle, it is a fusing of a proton and an electron (i.e. beta particle). Since neutrons have a limited lifespan away from protons, we may safely speculate that some physical influence of the proton allows the neutron to stay stable for billions of years when close to a proton(s). The only influence that the proton may extend is either gravitational or charge. Perhaps the continual charge bombardment from immediately close protons helps to keep the electron and proton forced together as a neutron. A neutron on the edge of a large nucleus has its bare ass pointed out into the big bad world and after sufficient spanking it promptly decays back into a proton and a beta particle (electron).

Runaway gravity cannot happen. A spherical blob nucleus will not do, protons will be in direct proximity and charge wins the day. A nucleus that ends up with too many bare assed neutrons will not last long either. The physical organisation of the nucleus must follow rules that ensure a stable structure:
- protons cannot have line of sight
- neutrons must be close to protons or they will decay

On the subject of neutrons, the concept of neutronium predicates neutrons existing in a stable state without proton charge to stop the neutrons from decaying. How much money is spent each year by real scientists investigating neutron stars?

What do real scientists believe in: SR, GR, QED/QCD, black holes, expanding universe, big bangs (with inflation field - nice touch, adds even more (in)credibility), EM waves, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, fairy magic, neutrinos, pixies, astrology, tarot reading, etc., etc..

Michael

[Michael V]

to correct a sentence in the previous post:

The effect of two charge emitting protons, in very close proximity, is that the charge from one proton adds to the aethereal particle flux of the other, thus increasing its charge emission.

[querious]

Would you agree that Charge is momentum?

[Michael V]

querious,

Would you agree that Charge is momentum?

Electrons and protons emit sub-particles that have mass and velocity. The product of mass and velocity is momentum.
So, yes, I agree.

Michael

[Sparky]

When I was taught "charge", electrons had a negative one and if there was no negative charge, then that was a positive one..

What did i know, so i just accepted it. And that circular reasoning was enforced the rest of my life by "science" articles. Of course, they all had the math to prove what they were saying was true.

I didn't study math or science. Most of my time was spent on looking at religions/cults. I just accepted that physics was science and progress was being made. Even though I was very uncomfortable with many claims made by the sciences, especially GR, SR, and quantum theories. I did not know that others were not only as uncomfortable as I was, but could mathematically and rationally argue strongly against such, if not outright disprove the theories/conclusions.

Having been around those in cults that had been deeply indoctrinated, I know how difficult it is to admit a problem with one's knowledge, and for some, impossible. It is even more difficult to actually change. When one's religion is consensus, the pressure to remain in that "cult" is tremendous.

Nonsensical beliefs can work. Indeed, we all have areas of belief that are nonsense. It is the human condition.

I want to thank those here that have helped me to confront the "nonsense" that I have acquired, even though it may appear that I am not learning much.

[seasmith]

The last couple pages have been very entertaining, but the OP question is: What actually is 'charge'?
, not how does charge behave.
The recurring circularity here is the the equating of charge, with mass in motion. ['tho apparently sometimes the mass can be virtual or even massless ??]

So now after we've trotted out every conceivable mathematic 'constant' in the book, could we please then have a
few pages on What is Mass

s

[Goldminer]

I didn't study math or science. Most of my time was spent on looking at religions/cults. I just accepted that physics was science and progress was being made. Even though I was very uncomfortable with many claims made by the sciences, especially GR, SR, and quantum theories. I did not know that others were not only as uncomfortable as I was, but could mathematically and rationally argue strongly against such, if not outright disprove the theories/conclusions.

I did study "math and science," but most of my money was spent on whiskey and women.

The rest I pretty much wasted.

The last couple pages have been very entertaining, but the OP question is: What actually is 'charge'? Not: how does charge behave.
The recurring circularity here is the the equating of charge, with mass in motion. ['tho apparently sometimes the mass can be virtual or even massless ??]

So now after we've trotted out every conceivable mathematical 'constant' in the book, could we please then have a few pages on What is Mass

s

I agree Seasmith. The topic has devolved from "What actually is "charge," to "Who actually is in charge!" The obvious answer is Michael V. Just ask him!

.

[querious]

From a previous post...

Supposedly, the strong force is about 100 times stronger than Coulomb's force. I've found at least one site that quotes 137 times, which would be nice, so I'll use that.

and then you write...

Once the protons get line of sight past the neutrons, they repel - at that distance, repulsive charge overcomes the attractive effect of gravitation.

If one inverse square force is 137X stronger than the other, it will always win a tug of war.

The attractive G force between the proton/neutron pairs would remain, but even the protons still have a G that is 137X stronger than the repulsive charge. Since G is stronger, then no matter the distance, G will win. It's as if you're saying the repulsion of charges doesn't decrease with distance, but G does, therefore repulsion wins. That doesn't make any sense.

[querious]

The recurring circularity here is the the equating of charge, with mass in motion. ['tho apparently sometimes the mass can be virtual or even massless??]

I'm not equating charge with "mass in motion", but momentum, per se. Momentum CAN be m x v, but doesn't HAVE to be, as evidenced by massless photons which carry momentum.

[Michael V]

querious,

as evidenced by massless photons which carry momentum.

"Photons", better described as "frequency photons", have momentum because they HAVE mass. Anything that is not nothing has mass. Momentum = mv, Energy = 1/2mv2.
Mass is a measure of the amount of matter something contains. Matter, not in the more limited sense of just electrons and protons, is what interacts - it is the substance that is not empty space.

It's as if you're saying the repulsion of charges doesn't decrease with distance, but G does, therefore repulsion wins. That doesn't make any sense.

Charge, as you seem to agree with, is caused by the emission of sub-particles from protons.

The entire universe contains a real physical material "field" of real physical material particles that have mass and velocity - we may call this the quantum aether field. This field is homogeneous in particle density throughout the entire universe. The individual particles are alone and discrete. Aside from occasional collisions with other field particles, they have no forces placed upon them, they simply travel in straight lines with a velocity of c. The directional distribution of the field particles is utterly random at all places in the universe. Since there are no forces acting on them, thus no mediative sub-field, there is no possibility whatsoever of any patterned distribution or coherent field motions such as waves or vortices.

The exception to this uneventful existence comes through fleeting collisional interactions with gross matter in the form of electrons, protons and neutrons (the only other particle types that exist). By virtue of interaction of the quantum aether field, electrons and protons (and neutrons) experience gravity and charge - these are the only operating methods of force that electrons and protons encounter.

The effect of the gravitational mechanism is to push objects together and is a function of their size and mass density. Charge is due to electron and proton spin and is a function of their spin speed, size and field interaction coefficients (i.e. how much they interact with the field). Normally, electrons and protons emit charge simply as a function of the ambient quantum aether field density. However, when charge emitters are in proximity, they will be mutually subject to each others charge emissions. This is effectively a localised increase in field density and I would describe it as the electron or proton experiencing an increased quantum particle flux.

Subject to an increased quantum particle flux electrons emit photons, but protons do not emit photons. I surmise that electrons have a limit to the rate at which they are able to emit charge. Some peculiarity of the electron structure and operation causes it to absorb charge particles and then re-emit them. Subject to an increased quantum particle flux they may absorb at a faster rate than they are able to emit charge - a familiar description of this is that they would go up an energy level (since energy = 1/2mv2), i.e. an increase in mass is an increase in energy. Due to the sustained charge particle flux and/or local gravitational influences, electrons store this increased mass until charge and/or gravitational factors allow it to dump its excess load of quantum aether particles as a photon. Since the photon travels at c, it is a safe bet that the electron circumferential velocity is also c. The photon is thus defined by the combined mass of the quantum particles released and the rate at which they are released - each quantum particle carries a kinetic energy of h, and the rate of release is defined as function of the number of quantum particles and c: the rate of release is usually referred to a frequency, i.e. h's per second. This description of a frequency photon emission naturally implies that all frequency photons are emitted over the same time duration.

Protons do not emit photons, thus I surmise that they emit charge at the same rate as which the quantum charge particles arrive - I would visualise and describe this process as more like a reflection, as opposed to absorption and re-emission. For the most part this process goes unnoticed, since nature has kindly designed the characteristics of electrons and protons so that their interactions with the field produce a balanced repulsive charge. Any momentary change in electron mass, and thus gravitational value, or increase in proton charge, is usually fairly balanced or inconsequential to atomic stability.

However, when two protons come into close proximity an additional effect occurs. The charge particles emitted by Proton A toward Proton B are effectively an increased quantum particle flux to Proton B, thus the charge emission of Proton B increases. This means that it is directing more charge particles at Proton A, this increased quantum particle flux to A has the effect of increasing the charge emission of Proton A. This means that A directs even more charge particles to B which means that B directs even more charge particles to A, etc etc. As the gravitational effect pushes the protons closer and closer, this positive feedback mechanism increases as an inverse square of the decreasing distance and at the same time the normal charge emission (due to ambient field density) is also increasing with an inverse square. The result is that at some close range distance the repulsive charge effect balances gravity. The only way to get protons closer is to neutralise of one of them - cue the neutron. With a charge-less neutron the repulsive effect of proton charge is greatly reduced and gravity can have its way and nuclei can form. The construction of the nucleus is therefore a game of proton hide-and-seek behind the charge agnostic neutrons.

Michael

[Sparky]

This description of a frequency photon emission naturally implies that all frequency photons are emitted over the same time duration.

PICTURES!...I need pictures...



Does this mean that photons are emitted from the same point, as a string of quanta, with NO time difference from the first to the last?

With point of emission moving at c, how is that possible?