Harry wrote: "On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape."
Your suggestion that it could be simply a difference in the amount of each type of a binary fluid is certainly interesting, but then charge would not be quantized, would it? Or more accurately, we would see fractional charge all over the place. I will agree with the idea that charge has more to do with the underlying medium... If one considers the idea of a polarizable (quantum) vacuum, then I think the likelihood of coming up with a physical explanation for charge is very likely. Why did we even come to think of requiring positive and negative charge as being part of atomic structure? In order to explain basic chemistry; how and why various elements combine to form molecules; why electrons 'hang around' the nucleus to form atoms... Another possibility is that charge is neither positive nor negative. In my physical model of subatomic elements, electrons are coupled to protons because there is a harmonic relationship between their oscillation frequencies, thus, it is independent of mass and size. Proton-proton and electron-electron Cooper pairs is a natural... the E-field and B-field are natural, macroscopic manifestations of the polarized vacuum... -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> wrote: > I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put > this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... > > What is electric 'charge'? > > Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort > Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into > what it > *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or > proton > (p+) from its mass? > > First some things to consider... > 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' > 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- > 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller > compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. > > Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with > mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. > So, what is it? On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Dare to be naive. -- Buckminster Fuller Harry
