# All Four Forces of Physics United
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [April 12, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289 "2017-04-12T04:17:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 17
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/321 "2017-05-15T00:58:35Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Yes, how can you use math to describe how much time speeds up or slows down because of the curvature of space created by the mass that displaces it.
What, you want me to do your homework for you?
On a more serious note, I will caveat everything by stating I am not a mathematician, I am an engineer by degree. Also, my math classes are 20 years in the past, and while I did reasonably well in calculus I and II (which is how my college divided them), and I struggled my way through differential equations, I would not trust my abilities to calculate an integral worth a flip.
In order for the calculus to be able to be computed, one first needs to derive the mathematical relationship and express it as a _function_. This can be a function with multiple variables, such as time, radius of the object, the amount of “stacking” that occurs when “space” is “displaced” by mass, and how that “stacking” changes when two objects are brought near each other. All of those relationships must be expressed mathematically.
Once those relationships are determined, one can then use some form of observation to collect data on actual measurements of some sort. This data can then be pressed through the mathematical relationships to help determine any scaling factors (i.e. constants of proportionality, such as _G_, Newton’s universal gravitation constant).
What calculus allows is to calculate a sum of results where the values at any particular point are different from other points. The basic relationship is measuring the area under a curve.
When computing area, it is very simple to calculate areas under straight lines. Squares, rectangles, triangles, etc have easy relationships to be able to create simple formulas for calculating the area. But how do you calculate the area of a curve that is not a simple circle?
The principle at play is that any area can be divided into any number of smaller areas that are mutually exclusive, such that the sum of all the individual areas will equal the total area. The next element in play is that one can make arbitrary choices upon how many pieces and how large or small to make them. Finally, there is a concept of infinitesimals, which is just taking that size determination to extremes. The result is that calculus uses _integration_ as a means of summing up all the separate areas at all the locations and combining them to form a final result.
Of course, the relationships you are proposing are not 2-dimensional, but 3-dimensional, but the calculations can be computed using the same principles.
So you would need to determine the relationship of how mass “displaces space”, how that “displaced space” interacts with the “space” it is bumping into, what happens to that “displaced space” when two objects interact (such as the Earth in the Sun’s gravity field), and any other relationships that affect your results. The variability of curvature of the Earth’s surface, for example, is the kind of secondary computation that the calculus would be used to determine.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> because of the relativity of the less space that it is in. the amount of space a proton displaces is less, relative to the less space farther away from the more space being displace by the planet, therefore time speeds up as the electron orbits the less space being displaced by the proton, than would be displaced at the surface of the planet. I am kind of tired of restating this point. If you have questions, read the theory first, it might answer a few of them.
Seriously, you need to work on your terminology to find a way to express this in some manner that is coherent, because using the word “space” and the word “displaced” in this manner are not conducive to expressing a concept that can be understood, let alone evaluated to see if a mathematical relationship can be proposed and an experiment devised.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity.
No, if anything, words are the inferior language, as demonstrated by your repeated repetition of the words you keep repeating repeatedly.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> I wrote this theory to show how gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and magnetism are all part of one simple idea. It is the space displaced by a mass that causes all of the four nuclear forces. My language may not be up to your well educated standard, but the theory is sound.
How do you know the theory is sound? What means have you used to validate it?
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> If there at 5 protons in a nucleus, the space displaced by the nucleus has 5 over lapped spaces that are more space than the space outside of the overlapped space. this is what creates the strong nuclear force. Likewise the wall of space differential has 5 points that represent the shape of the 5 protons in the nucleus. These points are not overlapped space, but are also greater space than the space outside of them. This is where electrons are contained in there orbits.
If I understand what you are trying to say, you are saying that mass somehow presses “space” out of the way, which stacks that “space” up into a denser ring of “space” around the matter, thus making “space” more concentrated in those rings than further away.
If I might create some kind of analogy, it would be like pressing marbles into foam, and then looking at the cross section of the distortions in the foam caused by the marbles. Around the marbles, the foam will be stretched and tight versus further away from the marbles where it will be spread more evenly. If you then bring 5 marbles close to each other, the compressed foam zones somehow interact to envelope the 5 marbles as a cluster rather than individually, meaning the foam between the marbles is pressed to the outside of the marble cluster.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> You have obviously studied up on your nuclear physics, the electron was given its negative charge designation because it moved towards the negative charged side of a parallel plate.
Factually [incorrect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron).
> [@](#):
>
> The ancient Greeks noticed that amber attracted small objects when rubbed with fur. Along with lightning, this phenomenon is one of humanity’s earliest recorded experiences with electricity. [15] In his 1600 treatise _De Magnete_, the English scientist William Gilbert coined the New Latin term _electricus_, to refer to this property of attracting small objects after being rubbed. [16] Both _electric_ and _electricity_ are derived from the Latin _ēlectrum_ (also the root of the alloy of the same name), which came from the Greek word for amber, ἤλεκτρον (ēlektron).
>
> [snip]
>
> A decade later Benjamin Franklin proposed that electricity was not from different types of electrical fluid, but a single electrical fluid showing an excess (+) or deficit (-). He gave them the modern charge nomenclature of positive and negative respectively.[19] Franklin thought of the charge carrier as being positive, but he did not correctly identify which situation was a surplus of the charge carrier, and which situation was a deficit.
>
> [snip]
>
> Stoney initially coined the term _electrolion_ in 1881. Ten years later, he switched to _electron_ to describe these elementary charges, writing in 1894: “… an estimate was made of the actual amount of this most remarkable fundamental unit of electricity, for which I have since ventured to suggest the name _electron_”. A 1906 proposal to change to _electrion_ failed because Hendrik Lorentz preferred to keep _electron_.[22][23] The word electron is a combination of the words _electric_ and _ion_.[24] The suffix _-on_ which is now used to designate other subatomic particles, such as a proton or neutron, is in turn derived from electron.
>
> [snip]
>
> The German-born British physicist Arthur Schuster expanded upon Crookes’ experiments by placing metal plates parallel to the cathode rays and applying an electric potential between the plates. The field deflected the rays toward the positively charged plate, providing further evidence that the rays carried negative charge.
In short, the word “electron” was coined before the charges were determined, the positive and negative convention were assigned arbitrarily, and the _electron_ was determined to be negatively charged because it deviated towards a positively charged plate.
> [@](#):
>
> My problem is the language of physics, opposites attract. If you have two parallel plates, one positive charge and one negative charge, they are not two opposite charges, only the energy is flowing in one direction.
This is not correct. We can see a distinction between electric fields and magnetic fields. For magnets, there is no such thing as a “magnetic monopole”, i.e. an independent magnetic charge. There are no positive magnetic charges and negative magnetic charges. Rather, you have magnets that are “positive” at one end and “negative” at the other, with pos and neg being an arbitrary convention.
However, electrical charges do exist in isolation. There are positive electrical charges, negative electrical charges, and neutral (no-charge).
> [@](#):
>
> When you force particles between the two plates, the particles attracted to the positive plate are called protons, and given a positive charge designation.
This is false.
> [@](#):
>
> I say the particle attracted to the positive plate and can accept a charge should be given the negative designation. The particle attracted to the negative plate and repelled by the positive plate should have a positive designation as it is already charged. And the particles that are attracted to neither plate is a particle that should have a neutral designation.
Well, then, you should be happy, because the particles attracted to the positive plate are called electrons and said to have a negative charge, the particles attracted to the negative plate are called protons and said to have a positive charge, and the particles that do not react are called neutrons and have a neutral charge, or no charge. Except you won’t be happy, because you think there is either having a charge or not having a charge or partially having a charge, such that having a charge already means it will be pushed away from the positive side, not having a charge means it will be attracted to the positive side in order to get a charge, and not reacting either way is somehow not charged but also charged.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> You see, when they named the particles, the science was not really established. When they smashed their atoms and tried to describe what they were seeing, the displaced space around the atom collapsed and any charge was released and was attracted to the negative plate, they called it an electron and said it was negative charged due to its attraction to the negative plate. The particles with no charge were attracted to the positively charged plate as they could accept a charge and appeared to have more mass, they called them protons and gave them a positive designation due to their attraction to the positive plate. and occasionally later on, they discovered some particles had a charge that ranged somewhere in between, and were not attracted to either plate, they called those particles neutrons, If they had known what they where actually seeing and the reason they might have named them differently, because its all very confusing today.
Completely and totally wrong on all counts. Nobody named the particles by smashing atoms. The names and conventions for charge were long established before any atom smashing came along.
> [@Mangetout](#):
>
> Does anyone know what actual experiment he’s describing here?
There are several examples of charged plates being used, but nothing that matches his descriptions.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/322 "2017-05-15T01:06:51Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> protons have a varying degree of charge, the protons that are neutral in the electric field between the two plates are the particles that were mistakenly called neutrons
Any particle that does not have any energy stored in it is going to be attracted to the positive plate. this is how magnetism works. I would designate that particle as the negative particle, not a negatively charged particle, that is still misleading, just a particle with out a charge. It is these misconceptions in the language of physics that make it all very hard to understand. It needs to be corrected.
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/323 "2017-05-15T01:07:32Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> protons have a varying degree of charge
I’m just going to leave this here for anyone who’s considering whether it’s useful to read the thread.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/324 "2017-05-15T01:13:32Z")
There are several examples of charged plates being used, but nothing that matches his descriptions.[/QUOTE
that is because the language is wrong and misleading. all of the observed phenomenon by the scientists who did the experiments, used the same misleading language they had been educated with to describe what they were seeing.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/325 "2017-05-15T01:20:19Z")
I feel just as frustrated as you with your description’s of physics phenomenon as you do with mine. IT IS A LANGUAGE BARRIER. You have all learned your physics with misleading language.
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/326 "2017-05-15T01:24:09Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> I feel just as frustrated as you with your description’s of physics phenomenon as you do with mine. IT IS A LANGUAGE BARRIER. You have all learned your physics with misleading language.
No shit. How about you learn the language? Maybe take a course or two in math or physics?
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/327 "2017-05-15T01:24:24Z")
Completely and totally wrong on all counts. Nobody named the particles by smashing atoms. The names and conventions for charge were long established before any atom smashing came along.
and they were wrong when they imagined the particles and named them too.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/328 "2017-05-15T01:26:21Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#):
>
> No shit. How about you learn the language? Maybe take a course or two in math or physics?
why would I want to use the same language that has confused everyone and made physics so hard for you to understand.
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/329 "2017-05-15T01:31:47Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> why would I want to use the same language that has confused everyone and made physics so hard for you to understand.
So you think your fucked up way of describing things is making things \*easier \*to understand"
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/330 "2017-05-15T01:36:10Z")
Well, then, you should be happy, because the particles attracted to the positive plate are called electrons and said to have a negative charge
I would check my information if I were you, because an electron would not be attracted to a positively charged plate.
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/331 "2017-05-15T01:38:52Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Well, then, you should be happy, because the particles attracted to the positive plate are called electrons and said to have a negative charge
> I would check my information if I were you, because an electron would not be attracted to a positively charged plate.
How do you think old style tube TV’s work(ed)?
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/332 "2017-05-15T01:49:52Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#):
>
> How do you think old style tube TV’s work(ed)?
not by electrons being attracted to a positively charged plate.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/333 "2017-05-15T01:56:04Z")
in an alternating current system the electron’s move back and forth at a high speed, I suppose you are going to tell me it is because they are attracted to the positive side of the magnet in the turbine engine generator that is powering it.
---
### Author:  [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/334 "2017-05-15T02:03:18Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#):
>
> How do you think old style tube TV’s work(ed)?
Stacked space
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/335 "2017-05-15T02:12:10Z")
**Mantraphilter** - whats your prevailing theory on how the pyramids were constructed?
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/336 "2017-05-15T02:16:29Z")
If the plate in the TV were negative charge it would there by explode as it soaked up all of the electron’s, but that doesn’t mean the positive plate is there to attract electrons, it is there to repel them so the tube does not explode.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/337 "2017-05-15T02:18:37Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> **Mantraphilter** - whats your prevailing theory on how the pyramids were constructed?
gravity was much weaker.
---
### Author:  [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/338 "2017-05-15T02:24:31Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> If the plate in the TV were negative charge it would there by explode as it soaked up all of the electron’s, but that doesn’t mean the positive plate is there to attract electrons, it is there to repel them so the tube does not explode.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> gravity was much weaker.
See, this is the consequence of a world of “alternative facts”
---
### Author:  [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/339 "2017-05-15T02:24:44Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> **Mantraphilter** - whats your prevailing theory on how the pyramids were constructed?
Well, you can be damn sure no math was involved.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 15, 2017, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/340 "2017-05-15T02:30:35Z")
> [@zoid](#):
>
> See, this is the consequence of a world of “alternative facts”
A world that is entering into the negative charge of the black hole that creates its galactic plane.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=16)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=18)