Could all mass be grounded by mass ?

[MigL]

You gotta love it when Joe, who professes to know very little Physics, insists on telling learned people how things work.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up 'residual' electrostatic forces that provide for molecular bonding.
A 'grounded' charge feels no force, so Joe would think that a 'grunded' mass ( such as on the Earth's surface ) would also feel no force, yet it does; we call it weight

Fields are particular to the model, and sometimes treating them as 'liquids' works for that particular model; sometimes a different approach is required.

Edited December 15, 2022 by MigL

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

Perhaps I don't understand your answers because I am not good at the math you provided . 

!

Moderator Note

This is a valid assumption. And you should think about this before insisting someone's response to you "can't be correct". This style is very reminiscent of the time-wasters you claim not to be. Either knock it off now or I see some suspensions headed your way. Nobody has the time to correct your hand-waving insistence.

This modnote is for you to take under consideration. Don't waste anyone's time responding to it.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, JustJoe said:

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 

You asked, and the answer was given, about an atom and an external charge. So all of this is irrelevant. You need to stick to the topic under discussion. 

“Electrical energy is grounded” makes no sense. You also need to learn the terminology and use it properly. 

 

 

[JustJoe]

5 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

That's the question I answered. The net force is from two equal and opposite forces that have joined together to make another force that adds up to zero.

F + (-F) = F - F = 0.

There can be nonzero net forces between atoms if they're right next to each other in the same solid or liquid. For instance, the Van der Waals force is caused by separations of the charges in each atom so opposite charges in the two atoms get closer to each other and attract each other. Hydrogen bonding is a similar phenomenon that occurs in water because the charge is already distributed unevenly between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. That's why water isn't as volatile as gasoline.

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 ? 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

You asked, and the answer was given, about an atom and an external charge. So all of this is irrelevant. You need to stick to the topic under discussion. 

“Electrical energy is grounded” makes no sense. You also need to learn the terminology and use it properly. 

 

 

We say electrical energy is grounding ? 

I seem to be at 6's and 7's with terms . 

[Lorentz Jr]

38 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

You are saying that the pull is equal to the push if I am not mistaken . 

Right.

38 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

How do you know that the push isn't lesser than the pull in strength ? 

Experimental evidence.

38 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

If the push was less in strength than the pull , would my speculation then work ? 

Of course. The net force is the sum of the two forces, so it would be nonzero if one force were stronger than the other.

[JustJoe]

28 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

 

Experimental evidence.

 

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 ? 

28 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Right.

Experimental evidence.

Of course. The net force is the sum of the two forces, so it would be nonzero if one force were stronger than the other.

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 . 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

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 ? 

To add to Lorentz Jr answer you might want to study Newtons laws of momentum 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

there is a section there specifically on electromagnetism

while your at it memorize the following statement

"Mass is the resistance to inertia change" then look and see how that applies to the Laws above

the reason I suggest the above is that you seem to lack in basic physics and the above applies to every physics theory. So its highly important to understand the above.

for example your title Could mass be grounded by Mass makes zero sense if you apply the definition given

By substitution it would read as Could resistance to inertia change be grounded by resistance to inertia change ? the answer is obviously no once to use the definition of mass,

the others are doing an excellent job helping you on the EM field so I wont interfere with their progress .

Edited December 15, 2022 by Mordred

[JustJoe]

26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

To add to Lorentz Jr answer you might want to study Newtons laws of momentum 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

there is a section there specifically on electromagnetism

while your at it memorize the following statement

"Mass is the resistance to inertia change" then look and see how that applies to the Laws above

the reason I suggest the above is that you seem to lack in basic physics and the above applies to every physics theory. So its highly important to understand the above.

for example your title Could mass be grounded by Mass makes zero sense if you apply the definition given

By substitution it would read as Could resistance to inertia change be grounded by resistance to inertia change ? the answer is obviously no once to use the definition of mass,

the others are doing an excellent job helping you on the EM field so I wont interfere with their progress .

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 '' . 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[Mordred]

well piece of advise study the basic definitions and related formulas for mass, energy, and work then apply those to the EM equations that are posted in this thread. in order to properly learn physics you will want to start at the beginning and not jump somewhere in the middle. You will just confuse yourself.

Also make sure your familiar with the linear and angular momentum equations those will be involved in every level of physics.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Mordred

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

Could you provide a link to these experiments please ?

You can look up the Millikan oil drop experiment if you're interested.

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

I am unaware of any experiments where we can split the atom and experiment with individual components . 

Read up on particle accelerators. They've been doing it for decades.

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

I await your evidence though because you say the -ve and +ve forces are equal . 

Equality is implied by the fact that normal objects don't react to electric charges.

[studiot]

I have no more proof that you are genuine or a clever troll, than you have for any of the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims you have made here.

But I do find your response style to anyone who genuinely tries to answer your questions reminiscent of a now banned member who claimed to be a philosopher living in Hong Kong.

To whit ignore the offered explanation and introduce further irrelevant or outrageous statements.

[Genady]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

To whit ignore the offered explanation and introduce further irrelevant or outrageous statements.

Maybe a learning disability disorder?

[JustJoe]

6 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

You can look up the Millikan oil drop experiment if you're interested.

Read up on particle accelerators. They've been doing it for decades.

Equality is implied by the fact that normal objects don't react to electric charges.

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 ?

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

I've looked up the experiment you suggested

Good job! 🙂

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

How are electrically charged droplets anything like a single electron or single proton ? 

They're not.

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

If they are adding charge , they aren't measuring the elementary charge . 

Okay, my friend. Suit yourself. 🙂

[swansont]

10 hours ago, JustJoe said:

We say electrical energy is grounding ? 

I've not heard that phrasing. Grounding refers to a circuit connection

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I've not heard that phrasing. Grounding refers to a circuit connection

Thank you that is what I said many moons ago.

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you that is what I said many moons ago.

Yes, and Joe has not answered the question of what they mean by grounding, because it's obviously not what the rest of us mean.

 

This reminds me of the video where Richard Feynman is asked to explain how magnetic attraction works and he says that he can't, because the interviewer is not familiar with the concepts that Feynman must use to explain it.

Which applies here: Joe asks a question that people can't parse because they are using terminology differently than everyone else understands it, and explaining the concepts is ineffective, because we are using physics that they don't understand.

[MigL]

3 hours ago, JustJoe said:

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 ?

You can figure all that out once you understand how a simple capacitor works. Charges  ( or lack of ) do migrate, and attract opposite charges.
Take Mordred's advice and start with the basics.

Edited December 15, 2022 by MigL

[JustJoe]

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, and Joe has not answered the question of what they mean by grounding, because it's obviously not what the rest of us mean.

 

This reminds me of the video where Richard Feynman is asked to explain how magnetic attraction works and he says that he can't, because the interviewer is not familiar with the concepts that Feynman must use to explain it.

Which applies here: Joe asks a question that people can't parse because they are using terminology differently than everyone else understands it, and explaining the concepts is ineffective, because we are using physics that they don't understand.

I'm not being arkward but the other moderator explained grounding and grounded . 

 

6 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Good job! 🙂

They're not.

Okay, my friend. Suit yourself. 🙂

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 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

I'm not being arkward but the other moderator explained grounding and grounded . 

They understand it. The question is: do you?

And given the information you’ve been given, do you want to amend the phrasing of your inquiry?

26 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 . 

How so?

You can’t have a desired result when you don’t know the answer.

[Lorentz Jr]

54 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

To me that is cheating 

To me, lecturing people about things you don't understand is cheating.

[JustJoe]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

They understand it. The question is: do you?

And given the information you’ve been given, do you want to amend the phrasing of your inquiry?

How so?

You can’t have a desired result when you don’t know the answer.

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 . 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

To me, lecturing people about things you don't understand is cheating.

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 . 

[Lorentz Jr]

6 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

I am not lecturing anybody  , I am asking question

"If they are adding charge , they aren't measuring the elementary charge" is a lecture, not a question.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[JustJoe]

23 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

"If they are adding charge , they aren't measuring the elementary charge" is a lecture, not a question.

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 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 ?

So the answer is no, you did not understand.

You might notice that Mordred mentions charge, not energy. (energy is not a substance) 

 

15 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 . 

If you can’t explain what grounding is, and what you mean by grounding mass, nobody can answer your question.

15 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 . 

Which isn’t what the experiment did. It measured the electrostatic force present with a known electrical field, by comparing it to the gravitational force.