Re: Charge

From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:12:13 -0000

"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:6NudnY4vioIddHjcRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:cs4f62$a74$1@kermit.esat.net...
> >
> > "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > news:jaWdnScCSZnzOXjcRVn-iw@prairiewave.com...
> >>
> >> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:cs408j$5de$1@kermit.esat.net...
> >> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> > message
> >> > news:cs3mf9$mfo$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >> >> Peter Kinane wrote:
> >> >> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> >> > news:cs3c9b$kmf$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >> >> >>Peter Kinane wrote:
> >> >> >>>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> >> >> >>>message news:cs2sj6$9jp$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip old stuff]
> >>
> >> [snip more stuff]
> >>
> >> > > > So, just to be clear, are you saying that mass - in the context
of
> >> > > > "masses
> >> >> > always attract" - does not effect through, or consist of, or
> >> >> > express,
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > feature electromagnetic interactions?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by "effect through",
> >> > "express",
> >> >> and "feature" here, but I would say yes.
> >> >
> >> > Again, much as in points 1 and 2 above, I am implying that I expect
> >> > that
> >> > mass is formed through (consists of, expresses or features - in
effect,
> >> > mass
> >> > consists of- -features- -expresses- -effects through) electromagnetic
> >> > interactions. Or at least that electromagnetic interactions are
factors
> >> > expressing in mass - or giving rise to mass.
> >> >
> >> > However, you seem to be saying "yes": "mass [] does not effect
through
> > []
> >> > electromagnetic interactions" (regardless of level).
> >>
> >> As properties of elementary particles, electric charge
> >> and mass are orthogonal.. However, the field (electric,
> >> magnetic, nuclear, ect) surrounding a particle contains
> >> energy, E, and therefore, the field has mass, m,
> >> according to E = m c^2. Since the field is at rest
> >> WRT the point charge, the mass of the field gravitates
> >> according to it's mass-energy.
> >>
> >> Because the electron is considered to be elementary,
> >> it can have no structure. The electron's electric charge
> >> resides at a point. The energy of the electric field
> >> generated by that point charge contributes to a portion
> >> of the electrons observed mass.
> >>
> >> quarks are also elementary point particles that carry
> >> fields corresponding to both the electric and nuclear
> >> forces. The energy of each field contributes to the
> >> observed quark mass. The quark's mass is much
> >> greater than that of an electron's because the energy
> >> contained in the quark's nuclear field is much greater
> >> than that of its electric field.
> >
> > Ok, thank you. I may have a vague understanding of what you are saying.
If
> > I
> > may still go on, I speculatively propose for consideration, although it
> > may
> > seem a repeat of what you said above, that such fields - such
mass-fields
> > and compounds of them - are the force which is called "gravity".
>
> No "mass fields". Mass is a scalar. An electric field
> possesses magnitude and direction as a function of
> location in space and is represented by a vector.

So, no more hair-brained concoctions:
Essentially, my theory is that, a field, (force) F, in interaction with
other bodies - planets or galaxies - consists of mass and direction; the sum
of the mass force and direction force of a field is the gravitational force,
G, which it acts upon other bodies. Perhaps that would be represented more
as mass (sitting there energy) plus energy with direction, GF = MF + VF.
This implicitly probably discounts the concept of "inertia". Also, it does
not attempt to express the force of energy of the forces - your work
probably takes care of that.

>
> Suppose that, at a given location in space, there is an
> electric field represented by the vector, E. That electric
> field is generated by a point charge located elsewhere in
> space.

Those two statements are probably the two that I can least conceptualise -
electric field generated by point charge located elsewhere?

>
> The energy density (Joules / meter^3), a scalar, at the
> point of interest is proportional to the square of the
> electric field strength, E^2. The mass density (Kg /
> meter^3), also a scalar, is proportional to E^2 / c^2,
> where c^2 is the speed of light squared.
>
> Now, center a small sphere of volume, V (meter^3), on
> the point of interest. The mass, m, within that small
> sphere is then proportional to the energy density and
> to the volume of the sphere:
>
> m ~ V * (E / c)^2
>
> A gravitational force field (a vector) emanates from that
> small spherical volume in all directions. If you are a
> distance, R, away from the sphere, due to gravitational
> attraction, you'll be accelerated towards the sphere with
> an acceleration, g, that's proportional to the mass, m,
> contained within the sphere, and inversely proportional
> to the square of the distance, R:
>
> g = m * G / R^2 ~ [ V * (E / c)^2 ] * G / R^2
>
> Where, G, is the universal gravitational constant .

This seems to presume that I am "distance, R, away from the sphere" _and
inertial_. I am exploring the possibility that instead of that model perhaps
it is more a case of me as GF = MF + VF (and discounting the distance, R,
factor) in relationship with, if the above does not need alteration, m * G /
R^2 ~ [ V * (E / c)^2 ] * G / R^2.

Essentially, gravity expresses through causing different forces to cohere
with each other.

>
> So, due to the mass-energy density within a small
> spherical volume element, wherein the electric field
> strength is E, there will be a gravitational force on
> you (towards the sphere that's proportional to the
> square of the electric field strength, E^2, and that is
> inversely proportional to the square of your distance,
> R^2.
>
> That's the gravitational force from one small volume
> element. To get the toal gravitational force on you,
> you have to sum-up all the little forces (direction and
> magnitude) from a multitude of little adjacent spheres
> that cover all of space where the electric field is finite.
>
> Of course, you are in the electric field, and you would
> feel the many orders of magnitude stronger direct
> electrostatic force of that electric field if your body
> possessed even a minute static electric charge (like
> Tesla your hair might standup on end).
>
> You may ask questions about this, but please, let's not
> have any more hair-brained concoctions. OK ?
>
> [old Man]
>
> > There are
> > various, shall we say, degrees of force of fields (- effectively, mass).
> > Any
> > such field is obliged to reside at the, shall we say, degree which its
> > force - its mass-field - expresses. (For example, gas, water, rock
reside
> > according to their "degrees of force of fields" or mass-fields, which
also
> > includes their velocities, in interaction with each other).
> >
> > In effect, "Gravity" (of- -between masses) may be a density multiplied
by
> > velocity forces relationship.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps there is nothing original here - unless that there is a lesser
or
> > different sense of "pull" and more of " field relationship effect", but
> > with the fields, at some level of [force], interacting. 

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: EM is an accelerating H field ??
    ... > At any distance, the electric field is the sum of two fields. ... > points in the radial direction. ... > The second is the "acceleration ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: they are wronglyl teaching relativity of simultaneity at university
    ... The Ghost In The Machine wrote: ... Einstein standing in the middle of the car will think. ... be inferred from the electric field. ... potential responds immediately to some distance rearrangement ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why does current create magnetic field? etc.
    ... > Electrical fields reduce by the inverse square root of the distance ... decays as the inverse square of the distance. ... For a long, straight wire carrying a current, the magnetic field decays ... For a point-like electric charge, the electric field decays as 1/r^2, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Stuck on a problem for two days
    ... produces an electric field E = K*, directed radially outward from the centre of the sphere. ... What is the volume charge density of the sphere? ... where one should express the divergence operator in spherical coordinates. ... Finally we divide by 4pi to get the volume charge density. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: is the EM field a complex vector ?
    ... However, s is distance and distance/time is velocity, so EMis better ... Eis electric field vector at the reference point s = 0 given by ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast