How Magnets Work

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
Hmmmm. Last I checked (looked at my passport and SIN card) I'm a Canuck not a Brit. Silent, schmilent, "an" just sounds right. Let's see (hear)..." Humans are a hypothesis"....nope just doesn't sound right. Nah, it's not even close.

I know you're not a Brit. I was just trying to foster our commonality, in saying, no, we don't do that over here, like they do "over there".

I'm guessing whether it sounds right to you has more to do with whether you pronounce the "h" or not.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I know you're not a Brit. I was just trying to foster our commonality, in saying, no, we don't do that over here, like they do "over there".

I'm guessing whether it sounds right to you has more to do with whether you pronounce the "h" or not.

I don't drop the "h" and in not doing so it still (leaving the "h" where it is) sounds right using an. It just rolls off the tongue easier by using an. Seems very harsh using "a". In Canada, the other official language say "A chacun son goût"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It's a big fat mystery.

Originally posted by Woodgie
If you ever find out, tell me first.
I will either cut you in (or cut you up - insert evil laugh).

The whole idea of electrons and atoms is essentially the same as the planets around the Sun, they can revolve on their own axis as well as spin around the Sun.
The question is how does the Moon not crash into the Earth or the Sun? (I am not accepting any ...[text shortened]... d I don't acknowledge the word Gravity as anything other than an answer for "I don't know"😉.

Why do you think the Moon ought to crash into the Earth, or the Sun?

If it was a stationary object, relative to Earth, then it presumably would fall to Earth through the force of gravity? Is that your belief? If you do not rely on gravity, then what do you rely on to imagine the Moon crashing into Earth?

Of course the Moon is not stationary but moving at quite a speed. So the real question ought to be why does the Moon not fly away into distant space and leave Earth far behind?

The answer has to include the following:

The Moon has a certain mass, and it travels at a certain speed.

If nothing impeded its flight, then the Moon would indeed fly in a straight line away from Earth. We call this force inertia. How much force would be required to interfere with the Moon's flight?

Answer - the more force there is, the more it can pull the Moon away from its straight flight path. So for different amounts of force, you will get different amounts of deviation. More force, more deviation.

Next - where is this force that stops the Moon flying straight? Answer - it is connected with Earth and we call it Gravity.

We can see the way gravity pulls at objects in space by observing asteroids. Some fly straight past. Some have a flight path that bends towards Earth, but then continue on their new trajectory escaping from Earth in a new direction. Some bend into the Earth and crash here.

There is a point that is not fast enough to escape Earth and not slow enough to crash. This is the speed of the Moon (and many other satellites). Basically at this point things fly around and around the Earth indefinitely until some new force interrupts that orbit - which is the result of a neat balance of two forces - inertia and gravity.

"Gravity" is a name for a force which we can observe in action. What is it? It's a force. Since Newton, we can measure Gravity and predict exactly how it will act between two (and more) bodies.

But to answer the sort of question - "what is it" - the person posing the question has to be able to explain what type of an explanation would be acceptable.

Like magnetism, it presents the huge problem of things that act at a distance - often immense distance. Should there not be a continuous, unbroken physical chain linking any two objects that are able to interact in this way? This might include a particle that travels between them (like a photon of light). People have talked for example about a "graviton" in this way. I don't know.

But then again, I suppose the question is not as obvious as it seems. Who says things cannot act at a distance? Since gravity clearly does exactly that (in so far as we can detect anything), and since relative to their size, atoms are largely made up of empty space, while tiny electrons whizz about at huge relative distances from their Proton and Neutron, then maybe that claim (nothing can act at a distance) is a fallacy?

If things can act at a distance then how do they act? Again, what type of answer? A lion is a lion is a lion - there is a point (say, when walking in a safari park) when that answer is really all we need. For me, gravity is gravity is gravity. It is not a mystery - it is a force and we can measure it and use the information to predict when Mars will be in the ascendant.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Was it Aristotle who said that if a dog or a horse could talk we would not understand what they said? When you ask for an explanation that can only be given using Quantum Physics, then the answer will have to be of that kind! Or else a "useful fiction" in language you and I might get, but not really.