I'm not sure what sort of explanation you're looking for. Forces are always between two objects. If I push you, it doesn't matter whether other people are pushing you or not, it doesn't change the force I'm exerting at all.
Let say q1 = 10N. In two charges q1 apply 10N on q2. In more charges the same 10N it apply on every single charge. From where q1 has more 10N force for other charges if it utilize in q2.
Things don't "have force" (and charge is not measured in Newton)
If you're asking where the energy for the work being done comes from, it's in the electromagnetic field - someone must have done work to separate the charges (if they're oppositely charged) or to bring them this close together (if they're of the same charge)
@ACuriousMind Yes i asked question about force. If a person has only 10N force. It apply on a box. It does not have more force to apply on other box on the floor. The analogy use for charge.
The force between charges is more like that exerted by a spring than that of a person. Imagine a bunch of particles where each is connected to the others via a spring. You wouldn't be wondering why moving one particle exerts forces on all the others, would you?
and now I see that John has already talked to you about this
The "spring" between charges is the electrostatic force.
Couldn't you have been more precise and explained what you didn't understand about his explanation rather than just act as if you asked the question here for the first time?
@M.N.Raia I don't know, I think quotes like "Today I want to tell you how particle physicists are wasting your money" and "Frankly, the way that particle physicists behave makes me feel embarrassed I ever had anything to do with their field." as part of a big tirade against particle colliders with red-herrings about supersymmetry thrown in for fun isn't exactly a pro-science position
Dear i don't understand. In two charges system. If q1 has 10N force it attract/repel q2 by the same amount and it consuming in attract/repel to q2. And i add q3 in a plane (analogy of mass-spring system). It should not attract/repel q3. If it is a mass-spring system between all 3 charges. q1 10N must distribute between q2 and q3. But in Coulomb's law we use q1 = 10N for q2 and q3. why
@ACuriousMind I was just reading that John Rennie conversation and I saw a "Hey!" "Hey?" after just reading your Yo's. That was a pretty good laugh.
@123 It doesn't consume anything. If you have two thing connected by springs, and you add another one in, it will take energy or increase energy to add that third to the system, but it doesn't reduce how much spring force is between each pair of charges.
@bolbteppa, I completely agree, I am no reasercher so my opinion can't be based on concrete facts, but just the way the opinion it was exposed wasn't very scientific
@JMac No, that was just probably once (or thrice). I am ready and free to talk now. Moreover, dropping by at least gives me a sense of a belongingness which I don't think I want to let go.
If you're asking where the energy for the work being done comes from, it's in the electromagnetic field - someone must have done work to separate the charges (if they're oppositely charged) or to bring them this close together (if they're of the same charge)
@FakeMod It's not intended to be user-friendly, it was written by a programmer with weird ideas about what makes "readable" code and designed to produce passable output on machines closer to potatoes than modern computers in their processing power
E.g. all the weird "you have to compile it X+1 times for an everchanging value of X" stuff is because it drops all sorts of information into files since it ran on machines that couldn't hold all the information in memory
the often cryptic error messages are probably another consequence of this - proper error recovery takes effort and memory that were not always available
@ACuriousMind If Tex.SE wouldn't have existed, then I guess all noob LaTeX users (like me) would have either died trying to remove the errors, or would've given up on LaTeX.
@123 "The electromagnetic field" is a catch-all term for both the electric and the magnetic field. They're not really distinct entities as you'll learn when you get to special relativity.
@FakeMod To programmers used to fighting with all sorts of strange compilation errors TeX doesn't seem all that terrible :P
@ACuriousMind @Ratman Manuals are great as long as you aren't getting any errors and doing stuff which is covered in the manuals. That's how I learned TikZ. But when you're getting errors or doing some stuff not documented in the manuals (usually the case when I am doing LaTeX), it feels damn hard to get ahead using just manuals.
@ACuriousMind To them. (BTW what are we drinking?)
What i am thinking may be it is natural phenomenon what we know just by experimentation. By adding charges to system the same force exert on each charge in the system. That's why none of the book/writer explain this phenomenon why it happened.
I mentioned this yesterday, but I've been playing more of it and I really gotta say anyone who enjoys kinda surreal puzzle games should check out Manifold Garden store.steampowered.com/app/473950/Manifold_Garden It's such a cool idea; not only do you change the surface gravity acts on, but the levels repeat in infinite patterns so you can do really cool things and it gives a really cool atmosphere.
@ACuriousMind I have a few specific types of puzzle games that I usually flock to. Like I played Portal 1 and 2, those were just fun. Besides that it's usually just games with weird mechanics. I've played some pretty cool ones, but the last one I beat was probably Antichamber like 4 years ago.
