[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
may be a duplicate
GL wrote:
Well, the only thing that's safe to say at this point is that our definitions
>of 'charge' are very different. Your definition of charge seems to map more
>accurately onto my definition of electric field. Semantics? Perhaps.
>For what it's worth, here's my definition of charge --
>
>A fundamental property of electrons and positrons, by virtue of which:
> 1. Electrons repel electrons at a distance.
> 2. Positrons repel positrons at a distance.
> 3. Electrons and positrons attract each other at a distance.
>Charges are always point sources, and electric lines of force terminate _only_
>in electric charges.
>
>This definition is still quite valid, as countless experiments have verified
>that electric field lines _always_ terminate in either a positron or an
electron,
>without exception. Alternative theories are possible, but you'll have to
>"do the experiment" that proves them in order to become famous.
>
>-GL
>
>GL. Please explain for me in simple terms what your definitions are again.
What is charge? I know it repels or attracts but WHAT IS IT?
What is the charge on a proton?
Where is the point source of the electric charge in an electron?
What are electric lines of force?
Why can a proton and electron exist in close proximity but a positron and
an electron will wipe each other out, cancelling both charges?
Sorry to appear so dim but this is interesting stuff and is the real basis
of what makes the Tesla coil tick.
Paul Millott