Hey look, they're half right.....

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Zyxzevn.

Thanks.
I am convinced that explaining things is better than trying to convince the other.

Yes. Explaining thing helps the explainer.
Unless they are not open to correction.

I appreciate your work, but it should still be correct.

I want to be right.

The mass (kg) is related to energy (joules) with the E=mc² relationship.
There is no electric charge (coulomb) in it

We are talking about elecrtical charge here.

So let me get this right, what you are saying.
Mass is related to energy, except in the case of electrical charge?

And with electrical charge, you have energy unrelated to any mass.
Is that right?

I would advice you to look at the lectures by Walter Lewin.
He gives very good examples, and let you understand how the units work in practice.

They all give us numbers and units, Zyxzevn.
And you already gave us the numbers and units.
That's all anybody seems to know about charge, is numbers and units, and equations.
Do you know any papers that give a sound explanation?

Hmm.
Here you are inventing your own physics.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere
Ampere is not flow of mass (kg), but flow of charge (coulomb). It is written as Coulomb per second

Thank you for that.
What are the dimensions of a Coloumb?

From that wiki link.

The ampere is ... newtons per metre of length

So then I look up Newtons.

One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.

Can you see?
That every time we ask about what charge is, we are given numbers and units.
When we ask, how do those numbers relate to the physics of forces, we are told, in effect,
that no, no physics is involved, since it is charge.

You can see it in this lecture how electric charges were discovered.

Thank you, I will read read these links you offer.

I do love to hear about the history in science.

With "at rest" I mean an atom that is in a gas at very cold temperature.
It only emits light at certain wavelengths that correspond with the
voltage-differences between the electron-bands.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
It does not emit light that corresponds with the rotation of the electron around
the nucleus.

The electron at rest is an electron with only its axial spin.

But I'm not going to use that anymore because I think it was only postulated as a base energy state, and in reality doesn't happen. Or, when it happens, it doesn't remain at rest for any significant period of time, since charge is everywhere, the electron at rest will immediately be set in motion again.

But if we look into that rotation, we get into quantum mechanics:
The rotation of the electron around the nucleus resonates with the
mass of the electron itself.

Are you sure the electron orbits the nucleus?
Because in QM they talk about probability clouds, and tunnelling in and out of existence, and stuff like that.
We're scolded if we use celestial orbits as an analogy.

I suppose that charge photons have rotations too.
And I strongly suspect they orbit each other.

This quantum interference follows the relationship:
E= h*f (h=6.6E-34, f=frequency)
And the relationship: E= m*c²
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

Can you explain the mechanics of what you are talking about, in English?

You started by saying the electron orbits the nucleus,
then you call that a quantum interference.

Does the electron's orbit interfere with the charge the proton is emitting? and that how it becomes neutral charged.

So you could say that this causes the electron NOT to emit any radiation
(based on electricity) of itself, because the electron is already a wave (based on mass)

So.
Electrons repel each other, we are assured.
But they aren't emitting anything?

Their charge is what causes the repulsion, we are told. They are both "negatively" charged.
But they aren't emitting that charge?

OK, Zyxzevn, you seem so sure of these things.
So tell us how does charge cause electrons to repel? By what mechanism?

It gets even more interesting in the gravity context,
because if we use our wave-duality of mass (on all particles),
we get exactly Newton's laws of gravity.
See this video or paper.

So far it hasn't got interesting yet.
I'm still no better in my understanding of charge.

Now you want jump to gravity at the quantum level as well?

So while this quantum principle blocks the emission of electric radiation, it also creates gravity.

So.
Charge is blocked at the quantum level, and gravity get created.
And all this is caused by the quantum principle of wave-duality.

Wow. Your ideas don't just contradict mine,
but also most of what I read from the mainstream about quantum physics.

But sadly due to the popularity of Einstein's gravity, this is usually put aside.

I wouldn't be too sad.
"Wave duality" is just two empty words.
And if they attribute to it what you just said, then it needs to be put aside.

Charge particles have wave motions.
That's what causes wave particle duality.

Look at the equations for gravity force and electric force.

Newton's gravity equation
F=Gmm/r2

Coulomb's electric force equation
E=kqq/r2

They're the same.
They have a different scaling constant, because they are on different scales of size.
And mass is simply renamed charge at the smaller scale of things.

Paul

[kasim]

Sometimes, if not always, there's more than one way of interpreting a phenomenon. The existence of the 'tori (or Van Allen belts) could be due to the earth's magnetic field and not the other way round. Some planets don't have tori because they don't have a magnetic field.

The dynamo principle for generating the earth's magnetic field is very logical. The liquid core, which is somewhat charged, rotates west to east and produces a perpendicular south-north magnetic field i.e. with a magnetic south pole near the North pole and a magnetic north pole near the South pole. Other ideas just don't make sense.

As for the sun, it's a sea of plasma and their movements produce unpredictable magnetic fields. I suppose if you can predict the flow of the plasma, you can predict their magnetic fields. The shock and horror of the science magazines is just hype to sell magazines. But the mainstream tend to be closed minded to new interpretation. Their minds will be more tightly shut if people come up with only one way of explaining certain phenomena.

[Zyxzevn]

Newton's gravity equation
F=Gmm/r2

Coulomb's electric force equation
E=kqq/r2

They're the same.

(I think you mean Felectric instead of E, because E usually means electric field not electric force.)

I disagree, since the q of objects are usually around zero.
That is because the q of each particle is either negative of positive.
So generally Felectric= 0.
The m of any object is greater than zero and depends on the number and kind of particles.
Lead objects are much heavier than plastic objects, while plastic objects can be charged
due to their high resistance.

That is why I added the videos, they are very good in explaining electric forces.
It follows simple logic.
I suggest you watch them, not only to understand the electric field better,
but also in how to explain things in a practical way.
They are really fun to watch.

Most things in physics that we use today are based on simple and practical principles.
I do not agree with a lot of theoretical physics, that leaves the practical principles behind.

If I would apply these principles on your theory, I would start with the idea that only
protons are responsible for gravity. (Neutrons could be like protons too).
And then I would try to find a way to prove that idea.
Like we can measure the weights of different atomic elements and see if this
principle still holds up.

Another variant is that objects have different electric charges, which causes them to
attract each other. This would mean that I can let a car levitate by charging
it electrically.

The general idea is: look at your theory and find practical ways of testing it. And also
check whether your test is actually working by testing variations.

[comingfrom]

Thank you very much, Zyxzevn.

You do show me.

(I think you mean Felectric instead of E, because E usually means electric field not electric force.)

Is the electric field not a force?

I disagree, since the q of objects are usually around zero.

Actually not.
Since the q of electrons and protons is usually around 1.

That is because the q of each particle is either negative of positive.
So generally Felectric= 0.

A zero electric field would mean no electric field, to me.

The m of any object is greater than zero and depends on the number and kind of particles.

There are no particles in the standard model's electric field.
They are fields of potential only.
Nothing mechanical or physical going on.
But things move.

Lead objects are much heavier than plastic objects, while plastic objects can be charged
due to their high resistance.

If Felectric = 0 then what motivates the electrons?

That is why I added the videos, they are very good in explaining electric forces.
It follows simple logic.
I suggest you watch them, not only to understand the electric field better,
but also in how to explain things in a practical way.
They are really fun to watch.

I am scared to.
After seeing your explanations.

Shouldn't you have clear practical explanations, if you've taken theirs on board?

Most things in physics that we use today are based on simple and practical principles.
I do not agree with a lot of theoretical physics, that leaves the practical principles behind.

To me, empty fields are neither practical (for theory), nor physical.

But mathematics is practical for engineering.

If I would apply these principles on your theory, I would start with the idea that only
protons are responsible for gravity. (Neutrons could be like protons too).
And then I would try to find a way to prove that idea.
Like we can measure the weights of different atomic elements and see if this
principle still holds up.

In my theory, protons are subject to gravity like all other matter.

It's no use applying principles to a theory, by first changing that theory.

Another variant is that objects have different electric charges, which causes them to
attract each other.

And how does that work?

You are saying atoms have their own electric fields, just like the Sun and planets.
And so much I can agree with.
But how does that then cause an attraction between them?

This would mean that I can let a car levitate by charging
it electrically.

They're doing such things nowadays, with smaller metal objects.
Wasn't it you who posted the video of levitating using magnets and bismuth?

But a normal electric charge won't do that to a car.
Which kind of shows us, that electric fields do not cause attractions, like gravity does.

The general idea is: look at your theory and find practical ways of testing it. And also
check whether your test is actually working by testing variations.

I don't have a laboratory,
but I can still apply it to published data to try it.

Many things mainstream do not even attempt to explain become more obvious.
Because, if charge is a real physical thing, and electric fields are real fields with real particles, at the quantum level, then it also exists at the macro level. It also plays a role in celestial mechanics.

And as we know, gravity only celestial mechanics is a mess. A pile of fudges.
And they insist their charge fields are empty, from the atoms to the far galaxies.
Meanwhile, they search for dark matter.

Paul

[comingfrom]

I can hardly believe this...

In 1845, Michael Faraday discovered that polarized light propagating through matter parallel to a static magnetic field experiences a rotation in the plane of polarization.

From TPOD Field of Vision

Over 170 years ago it was discovered that light is effected by magnetic fields?

This is what I mean by confirmation of theory, Zyxzevn.

The photon has to be a real physical entity to get effected by the magnetic charge.
Charge has to be real physical entities, with real spins, to effect photons like that.
Wouldn't you agree?

Paul

[Zyxzevn]

Thank you very much, Zyxzevn.

You do show me.

(I think you mean Felectric instead of E, because E usually means electric field not electric force.)

Is the electric field not a force?

No. It gives only a force when a charge is present.

I disagree, since the q of objects are usually around zero.

Actually not.
Since the q of electrons and protons is usually around 1.Qelectron= -1, Qproton=1
Qelectron+ Qproton = 0 (Zero).
You can test it for yourself as you can see in the videos.

That is because the q of each particle is either negative of positive.
So generally Felectric= 0.

A zero electric field would mean no electric field, to me.

Correct. Positive and negative can add up to 0.

The m of any object is greater than zero and depends on the number and kind of particles.

There are no particles in the standard model's electric field.
They are fields of potential only.
Nothing mechanical or physical going on.
But things move.

You can test it on larger scale where nothing moves.
Or move the charges to see their effects. They follow known EM laws.
You can see that in the videos.
I can work out a test case with you.

Lead objects are much heavier than plastic objects, while plastic objects can be charged
due to their high resistance.

If Felectric = 0 then what motivates the electrons?
The proton is positive and keeps the negative electron in place.
But both together produce a zero effective field.
In observations it does not matter that the electron is moving.
In quantum mechanics we can see why: the electron does not exist as a particle.

That is why I added the videos, they are very good in explaining electric forces.
It follows simple logic.
I suggest you watch them, not only to understand the electric field better,
but also in how to explain things in a practical way.
They are really fun to watch.

I am scared to.
After seeing your explanations.

Shouldn't you have clear practical explanations, if you've taken theirs on board?
Do I need to repeat to you, what is in the videos?
Just watch them and learn a bit. They just teach the basic stuff,
with practical examples. Not the theoretical nonsense.
The teacher is actually very famous for explaining physics in simple terms.
If you find something you do not agree with, we can discuss it.
And if you learn from it, you will know more than most people in astronomy.

Most things in physics that we use today are based on simple and practical principles.
I do not agree with a lot of theoretical physics, that leaves the practical principles behind.

To me, empty fields are neither practical (for theory), nor physical.

But mathematics is practical for engineering.
With maths you do small simplifications of the real world.
That is why you have to be careful with maths.
For example, I can use gravity= 9,51 m/s². And this will work well when I am making
or breaking buildings. It will not work if I want to model the rotation of the moon.

<skipped variations>

Many things mainstream do not even attempt to explain become more obvious.
Because, if charge is a real physical thing, and electric fields are real fields with real particles, at the quantum level, then it also exists at the macro level. It also plays a role in celestial mechanics.
I agree with that. In the videos the tutor demonstrates
how electric charges can create force.

And as we know, gravity only celestial mechanics is a mess. A pile of fudges.
And they insist their charge fields are empty, from the atoms to the far galaxies.
Meanwhile, they search for dark matter.
Whether or not the theory of gravity is correct, you have different things here:
Gravity of most planets and moon work with Newton's gravity.
Gravity inside galaxies does not work at all (dark matter).
Gravity of the atoms is unknown. They are too small to measure.

[Zyxzevn]

I can hardly believe this...

In 1845, Michael Faraday discovered that polarized light propagating through matter parallel to a static magnetic field experiences a rotation in the plane of polarization.

From TPOD Field of Vision

Over 170 years ago it was discovered that light is effected by magnetic fields?

This is what I mean by confirmation of theory, Zyxzevn.

The photon has to be a real physical entity to get effected by the magnetic charge.
Charge has to be real physical entities, with real spins, to effect photons like that.
Wouldn't you agree?

Paul

Magnetism does indeed influence the polarisation of light, that is why I proposed
that as an explanation of the LIGO signal that is thought to come from gravitational waves.

Electric or magnetic fields can also shift the frequencies of light (Stark-effect or Zeeman-effect),
as long the material is in those fields.
I think that might also the cause for some big redshifts in quasars.

I still do not think photons are real entities.
http://www.unquantum.net kind of proofs it.
But that is a complete different discussion.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Zyxzevn.

Is the electric field not a force?

No. It gives only a force when a charge is present.

That implies there is no charge present in most electric fields.

To me, electric fields are charge.
The electric field is a field of charge.

Qelectron= -1, Qproton=1
Qelectron+ Qproton = 0 (Zero).
You can test it for yourself as you can see in the videos.

You didn't answer my question before.
Negative what, and positive what?

It is said they (the electron and proton) have equal amounts of charge,
but until it is explained what is negative and positive about their charges, the test is pretty meaningless.
You don't even know what you are testing.

I think electrons may be spinning the opposite way.

A zero electric field would mean no electric field, to me.

Correct. Positive and negative can add up to 0.

Yes, I understand that -1 + 1 = 0.
But if you have 1 negative apple, and 1 positive apple, that still makes two apples.

And negative charge makes just as much sense as negative apples.

You can test it on larger scale where nothing moves.
Or move the charges to see their effects. They follow known EM laws.

If there is zero force, I don't think you can't test it.
The fact that you can test indicates to me there is greater than zero force.

The proton is positive and keeps the negative electron in place.
But both together produce a zero effective field.
In observations it does not matter that the electron is moving.
In quantum mechanics we can see why: the electron does not exist as a particle.

In electric fields, electrons are sent one way, and protons in the opposite direction, yes?

Do I need to repeat to you, what is in the videos?

No you don't.
But if they were any good, you could give a clear gloss.

Your gloss has consisted of giving some numbers and undefined units,
zero electric fields,
force free electric fields,
and negative quantities of the substance we call charge.

So when you say...

Just watch them and learn a bit. They just teach the basic stuff,
with practical examples. Not the theoretical nonsense.

I be worried that I might end up believing the same basic theoryless nonsensical stuff you have offered.

No disrespect intended, but you have again forgotten my purpose.
My purpose is not to adopt the mainstream's explanations, which have no clear theory behind them, and do not even follow rules of language or the meanings of words.

I'm trying to understand the mechanics of charge.
You know. Do some physics and try to fathom what is happening on the physical level.

The teacher is actually very famous for explaining physics in simple terms.
If you find something you do not agree with, we can discuss it.
And if you learn from it, you will know more than most people in astronomy.

I was considering compiling a list of my unanswered questions to you from this thread.
But if you could just answer me this one... what are the dimensions of a coulomb?

To me, empty fields are neither practical (for theory), nor physical.

But mathematics is practical for engineering.
With maths you do small simplifications of the real world.
That is why you have to be careful with maths.
For example, I can use gravity= 9,51 m/s². And this will work well when I am making
or breaking buildings. It will not work if I want to model the rotation of the moon.

Your answer here again show what I was just saying.
You answered to my agreement to you, but ignored commenting to the point I made.

When someone agrees with you on a point, you don't actually need to elaborate further.
When someone comments on your forceless and empty fields, then you need to address that.

Electric fields don't contain mathematics, and aren't using mathematics to cause the effects we observe.
The mathematics should to be describing some real thing. Yes?

And I am going to find out what it is.

I agree with that. In the videos the tutor demonstrates
how electric charges can create force.

Tell me, before I go waste my time.
What do they say charge is?

Because I can already guess,
their charge, which is a nothing, can even be a negative nothing, creates force by an equation.

Am I right?

Whether or not the theory of gravity is correct, you have different things here:
Gravity of most planets and moon work with Newton's gravity.

I disagree.
Using Newton's theory they have to sum the velocity over the orbit to get an orbital velocity, because the theory does not and cannot explain how planets and moons have periods of acceleration and deceleration.
They make a ghost second center of gravity to explain elliptical orbits.
They have the n-body problem.
If the balance between tangential (innate) velocity and the centripetal force (gravity) goes out just slightly, as when it receives a perturbation from another planet, it would be fatal to the orbit, according to the theory.
Fall into the Sun just slightly, and the gravity increase from being closer will increase the fall.
If depart from the Sun just slightly, the slight gravity decrease from being further from the Sun will cause the planet to fly out of orbit.

These are just a few of the unsolved problems of Newtonian celestial mechanics.
There is no mechanism for orbits to self correct in Newton's theory of gravity.
Observation shows us that orbits self correct.

Gravity inside galaxies does not work at all (dark matter).

Charge is a force and needs to be taken into account at all levels.

Gravity of the atoms is unknown. They are too small to measure.

Coulomb's equation is a unified field equation. That's why.

Mathis has calculated the gravity component and found it to be 1022 times stronger at the quantum level than mainstream has estimated it to be.
(It is still small.)

Magnetism does indeed influence the polarisation of light, that is why I proposed
that as an explanation of the LIGO signal that is thought to come from gravitational waves.

And that still doesn't convince you that charge has to be a substance, having mass?

I loved your idea of using the LIGO detectors for testing the bending of light by gravity theory.

The physical sciences does really need to clear up it's long standing problems before it can advance, and before it leaps into speculative new things like gravitational waves.

Thank you and good day
Paul

[comingfrom]

From Quora: What are the dimensions of coulomb?

Answer 1.

Dave Yerzley
Updated May 29
The coulomb is a measure of charge.

Metrologists chose current as the base electrical unit, and current is the rate of flow of charge. The unit of current is the ampere.

So charge is a derived unit, equal to the integral of current over a span of time, and the dimensions are ampere seconds (A s).

Alicia Harris has commented that these are units, not dimensions, and, strictly speaking, she is correct.

To be more rigorous, I should say that the coulomb, in SI base units, is expressed in ampere seconds, and that the corresponding dimensions are current time.

last 2 paragraphs added on 05–28–2017.

Answer 2.

Manindra Kumar, Student at NGP Patna 13 (2016-present)
Answered Jun 30
As,

CCURRENT = Rate of Change of Charge passing through a fixed cross sectional area

i.e.

I = dQ/dt

dQ = I * dt

SI unit of

Current ( i ) - Ampere ( fundamental unit )
Time ( t ) - Second ( fundamental unit)
Charge ( Q ) - Coulomb ( derived unit )
So dimensional formula of Coulomb will bi

Ampere-second

So I look up Ampere

ampere
ˈampɛː
noun
a unit of electric current equal to a flow of one coulomb per second.

So we see, Coulomb = Ampere-second
and Ampere = Coulomb per second.

We see that is circular.
So can we find out the dimensions of Ampere?
(Interestingly, Quora doesn't have that question.)
But Wikipedia tells us

SI defines ampere as follows:

The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.

Ok, it is a force.
Newtons per metre.

Now we are getting somewhere.
So the Coulomb is now N/m-second.

Lets look up the Newton.

Definition.
One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.

OK, that is kg/m/s2

So now the Coulomb is kg/m/s2 per metre-second

I'm sure that can be reduced down now, but I reached the limit of my knowledge how to do that.
In fact, I'm stumped by ampere-second already.
I presume it doesn't mean Amps minus seconds.
It it Amps times seconds?

Anyhow, we have metre twice, and seconds three time,
but I can't distinguish the denominator and numerator here.
I don't understand the dash operator before second.
I'm hoping you might be able to finish this with your mathematical skill, Zyxzevn.

Let us be one of the first (or the few) to understand the true dimensions of the Coulomb,
and see if we can't learn something about what charge actually is.

Paul

[comingfrom]

I saw it somewhere else,
while reading about the Faraday effect.

When showing the assignments of the variables in the math,

B is the magnetic flux density in the direction of propagation (in teslas)

So magnetism is flux, and it has density.
For anything to have density, it must have some substance.
Well, that is what flux is too. Some thing is flowing, or changing.
What thing could that be?
It's not a force, it's not energy, it's not mass, they call it charge.
Coulombs per second when it is measured as a current.

So I'm getting to,
both electric fields and magnetic fields are charge flowing.
So as charge flows, it creates two effects, two forces that are orthogonal to each other.
(This is admitted of photons. See Polarization_(waves))
We measure those forces by sending an electron or proton or polarized light into the field.

This (half right theories) is what I'm wresting with.
I don't mind if you rip into me if you think something I said is wrong.
In fact, please do.
Paul