JustJoe

Words have different uses , why do you think that science has to use a specific set of wording ? I'm not being awkward but you are implying that scientists can't understand the every day use of wording with explanation of the context . Yes , children can be grounded , aeroplanes can also be grounded , electrical wiring that is attached to a plug has a ground or alternatively an earth . Ok , lets say I agree with you , my use of grounding is a missuse . What would you call the process in scientific terms for what I've explained ? I did say that . ''I agree the experiment is not relevant to this thread, any more than most of your posting.'' Do you suggest I leave the thread I started that is asking questions ? It isn't up to me to convince me that what you all are telling me is the truth and accurate facts. I am not that smart but I am neither naive . It is up to the repliers to convince me of the facts . This far every replier as ignored the questions I posed about the balloon and the plasma ball that shows there is an unbalance of force .

An aeroplane that is not able to fly is said to be grounded , a captain orders the grounding process . An object at rest can be viewed as been grounded by the grounding process . An objects internal conserved charge is ordered by the grounding process to be grounded , this process could be viewed as gravity . Is that any clearer ? Added F+≠F-

That isn't a lecture , that is an observation of the experiments process and my opinion of an experiment that ionises particles rather than dealing with the single electron . Multiple electrons will have a greater magnitude than a single electron and so on . It also sounds like they ''bottled'' the droplets by using the two plates , adjusting them to suspend the droplets equal in force . Man made rather than a natural measure . I could be wrong of course but the experiment doesn't seem correct to me in regards to this thread topic . Added - I also see that the balloon sticking to a wall when static charged shows there is an unbalance of force , contradictory to the experiment ? Added - diagram

I took the answer in saying that any electrical energy that was not binded with something will be ''absorbed'' by the ground in a process called the grounding process , this electrical energy can then be considered to be grounded ? Given the information I have been given still does not satisfy my inquiry because given questions by myself have been ignored leaving me to make assumptions . I am not sure how I can amend my phrasing , I didn't even pass an English exam . The experiment provided doesn't seem correct to me although admittingly it would be very difficult to measure the repulsive force of electron-electron or the attractive force of proton-electron . I am not lecturing anybody , I am asking question about physics and having an opinion on the answers . I don't know enough to lecture anybody . I thank your patience , you have been very helpful .

I'm not being arkward but the other moderator explained grounding and grounded . Thanks but I don't want to suit myself because I wouldn't understand correctly . You provided the experiment and to me the method of the experiment seems designed to give the result that they wanted . It says they charged particles , then adjusted the apparatus to get the desired result . To me that is cheating

I've looked up the experiment you suggested , '' The oil drop experiment was performed by Robert A. Millikan and Harvey Fletcher in 1909 to measure the elementary electric charge (the charge of the electron). The experiment took place in the Ryerson Physical Laboratory at the University of Chicago.[1][2][3] Millikan received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1923.[4][5] The experiment entailed observing tiny electrically charged droplets of oil located between two parallel metal surfaces, forming the plates of a capacitor. '' How are electrically charged droplets anything like a single electron or single proton ? I assume the oil droplet is made of atoms ? If they are adding charge , they aren't measuring the elementary charge . You also said , ''Equality is implied by the fact that normal objects don't react to electric charges'' Earlier on in this thread I provided several links , one being a plasma ball and one being the static charge of a balloons surface. If we consider the physics involved of the links , this implies normal objects do react to electrical charges . I am not the smartest cookie in the tin but I am pretty sure that the plasma of a plasma ball is attracted to my finger when I place my finger on the glass . I also know that I don't go around electrocuting people with my finger so my finger must be a neutral ? Also if a static charged balloon can stick to a vertical wall , the likewise charge of the neutral wall is hardly being repulsive ? It would be quite clear that the magnitude of charge of the balloon is giving the balloon more attraction power to the opposite charge within the wall ?

I'm not sure how long of a title to a thread I can write so I wrote it the best way I thought would fit . My title should of read , ''Could the electrical energy conserved by mass cause the mass to be grounded by other mass , as a part of the electrical energy grounding process '' .

Could you provide a link to these experiments please ? I am unaware of any experiments where we can split the atom and experiment with individual components . Also do you know whether a plasma balls plasma is positive or negative charge ? I've added F-ev ≠ F+ev to represent the embolded part of the quote . -ev and +ev are negative and positive vectors . I await your evidence though because you say the -ve and +ve forces are equal .

Does electron-proton attraction have more strength than electron-electron repulsion ?

Ok, thank you , I understand what you said now . I think all your answers are way above my level of understanding perhaps , too smart . You are saying that the pull is equal to the push if I am not mistaken . How do you know that the push isn't lesser than the pull in strength ? If the push was less in strength than the pull , would my speculation then work ? We say electrical energy is grounding ? I seem to be at 6's and 7's with terms .

Perhaps I don't understand your answers because I am not good at the math you provided . I want to know how much force an atom applies on another atom , I explain this force in being two seperate forces that have joined together to make another force . In trying to explain differently , how much attractive force does a human finger apply on the plasma in a plasma ball ?

That can't be correct because of several reasons 1) An electrostatic charged balloons surface sticks to a vertical wall 2)Electrical energy is grounded 3)Lighting strikes are generally directed towards the ground A wall is electrically neutral , how can a balloon stick to a vertical wall unless the wall was attracting the balloon ?

Yes I understand the net charge of an atom is zero but what is the net force ? Yes I admit there is probably many intricate details I don't know but I think my generalised understanding is ok .

When a proton and electron become joined , one charge cancels out the other charge , making it a neutral particle . This it what I was attempting to say , but messed it up . You explain - '' Electron attracts proton, proton attracts electron.'' I asked , when a proton and electron is joined , why is the attractive force then ignored ? I don't know a great deal about math but why have you used charge rather than a force ? Shouldn't it be proton force + electron force divided by radius squared ?

Isn't the electron and proton unbalanced in charge magnitude which would account for motion and a 0 radius ? Nullified is a terrible word to use , I should of said equalised .

Yes science ignores the forces . An electron and proton are said to be attracted to each other because opposite charges attract each other . Ok, let us consider a proton and an electron that are joined together . Does the electron charge still have an attractive force to free protons ? Does the proton charge still have an attractive force to free electrons ? My answer is yes , why would the force be nullified just because they are now joined together ?

I've read before that lightning can be a positive or a negative charge and the charge that comes from the ground to connect with the lightning is the opposite charge ? When we rub a balloon and create an electrostatic charge , the balloon can be stuck to a vertical wall , the static energy being grounded by the wall . An atom has an electron and a proton , these both have opposite charges . Why are the Coulombs of force ignored by science just because they measure 0 voltage ? A force isn't a voltage .

A speculation doesn't require supporting evidence , speculation is more talking about the information and using common sense . However , I'll add citations to the topic : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_globe#:~:text=A plasma globe or plasma lamp (also called,applied%2C a plasma is formed within the container. https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/balloons-and-static-electricity/about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment The above is supporting evidence of a grounding gravity theory .

The Big Bang says that the universe started from a high temperature , dense state . It then says that this state expanded across space in a big bang . Space can't be physically empty when the big bang expanded , filling all of observable space with matter and EM fields . There may of been empty space before the big bang but once the big bang occured , that becomes irrelavant .

I consider that the Earths Em field and the Earth is like a bike wheel and the fields motion is relative to the ''spindles'' motion . I also consider that the field can curve the same as a magnetic field . My reason for thinking this is because I believe there is a +y axis tensioner being applied on the body that creates the EM fields dimensions .

I am aware of Neutrons but atoms still have the properties of a positive and negative charge even if measuring 0 voltage . We aren't talking about isolated particles although even if there was free neutrons , the neutrons would also be attracted by the grounding process . It is my opinion that gravity is the grounding process and orbital motion is caused by thermal dynamics . The heat of the Earth system can't possibility be attracted to the Sun , the opposite reaction is implied ?

Fields most definitely converge . An Em field in my opinion is an extension of the matter , forced to extend into space by space itself . However , let's not change the subject too much . Here is a diagram of this topic question of an object ''communicating'' with the ground via the EM field of the ground .

Thank you , I will read this several times to be clear in my understanding . I firstly question this - ''Charge is the basic property possessed by some, but not all matter to which we attribute electrical phenomena.'' Doesn't all matter contain electrical charge because of the proton and electron ? Or do you consider electrical charge being only a value greater than 0 ? I personally see all matter to have electrical charge even though it measures 0 voltage because it is constructed of atoms . In my opinion any EM field that is binded with matter could be viewed as an aether . If I shine a torch in any direction , the light has to pass through the EM field . I think we already have detected an aether but not the sort of aether that is stationary and binded with space . Added -diagram

I don't think Einstein ever said that gravity is the curvature of space-time. I recall him saying that large masses could curve space-time , implying that mass was the cause of gravity . Space-time curvature would be an effect caused by gravity , however for something to curve , it would require physical substance. A curved line drawn on paper is always curved relative to the ''flat'' paper . Atmosphere is a medium , there is no reason not to consider that EM fields could also act as a medium for the propagation of light .

You are assuming passing through air rather than using the Earths field as a ''medium'' . You say positive and negative isn't really relevant although we know that a positive and a negative both apply forces acting on each other . We measure 0 net charge when an electron and a proton is binded together but that doesn't necessary equate to no net force . Take ourselves for instant , we have an amount of conserved electrical energy that must be grounded by the earth . I calculate that gravity isn't one force , instead 2 forces at work . The negative of a ''loose'' object attracted to the positive of the ground and the positive of a ''loose'' object attracted to the negative of the ground and vice versus . Current is the flow , grounded has been discussed in another thread , voltage a magnitude , charge the polarity ? P.s Does this work ?