Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
It was not my description of the experiment, I never said anything about not crossing the rods. Any charged particles in the cork are pushed by the charge in one rod, but when you cross the rods due to varying degrees of charge it changes the direction of the charge, and any positive charge atoms in the cork now are attracted to the rod with its charge now moving in the opposite direction.
Does a neutron and a proton have any difference in there weight, because the proton should be heavier because of the charge it contains.
No. What are you talking about?
Does a charged battery weigh more than a discharged battery?
the glass rod and carbon rod experiment described a few posts back.
I would think so.
Neutrons are 0.1% more mass than protons.
Ok, that’s bad. Important safety tip, do not cross the rods.
This is a problem for me and my theory, what instruments are they weighing the particles with, and are you sure they don’t have the language fucked up like the negative charge thing.
I have a theory called the infinate invariable, I represent it with a Y for three dimensions. The space around the Y is all of the variables of space and time that cause the invariable.
I will use science to prove my theories!
Unless, of course, they come up with different results, in which case they fucked up!
I love this! You don’t often see crackpottery this pure in the wild! What a fantastic illustration of the species!
Mass of a neutron cannot be directly measured. But it can be calculated: Neutron - Wikipedia
Why am I doing your homework for you?..
:smack:
it seems that the battery does way less after it loses its charge, but a positively charged particle ways less than a particle with no charge? Either the language is wrong or the battery uncharged ways more than the charged one. It cant be both ways.
A) I was quoting a movie.
B) A variable that never changes (which I think “infinite invaribale” is supposed to mean) is called a constant.
C) The rest of your statement is gibberish.
The proton does have a slightly lower mass than the neutron, which would be surprising if protons and neutrons weren’t totally different things. This is why, for example, neutrons decay into protons (with some other products) but not vice-versa. (I’m talking specifically about decay here, not general processes.)
What a surprise: If the universe doesn’t the agree with theory (which is a very generous name for this sort of nonsense), then the universe must be wrong.
I’m just going to leave this here for anyone considering whether it’s worth talking to the OP.
[quote=“Itself, post:418, topic:784289”]
The proton does have a slightly lower mass than the neutron, which would be surprising if protons and neutrons weren’t totally different things. This is why, for example, neutrons decay into protons (with some other products) but not vice-versa. (I’m talking specifically about decay here, not general processes.)
In my theory, the decay you are talking about is a positively charged particle losing its charge and becoming a neutron. It doesn’t make any sense to say that the uncharged particle (neutron) would weigh more than a charged particle (proton), so either there definitions of particles are reversed, or there is an effect that a charged particle has on the instrument they are weighing it with. Have they even been able to weigh a single particle or are they just using math to build a theory?
This has really been bothering me…you do NOT have a theory.
I’m not sure what you have but it’s not a scientific theory.