Could all mass be grounded by mass ?

[JustJoe]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

So the answer is no, you did not understand.

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

 

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

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.

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- 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

 

Is that any clearer ?  

No.

A child that has misbehaved my be 'grounded' , but that is also an entirely different non scientific usage.

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

I could be wrong of course but the experiment doesn't seem correct to me in regards to this thread topic . 

I agree the experiment is not relevant to this thread, any more than most of your posting.

However I also observe that you appear from your responses not to have understood it.

Firstly Millikan's experiment was to measure the ratio of charge to mass of the electron, not the charge or the mass.

Secondly the oil drop experiment did confirm Faraday's  electrochemical experiment that there is a fundamental unit of charge that the charge always changes in integer multiples of.

Millakan's book is a masterpiece of patient experiment - observation - deduction.

[JustJoe]

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

No.

A child that has misbehaved my be 'grounded' , but that is also an entirely different non scientific usage.

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 ? 

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

However I also observe that you appear from your responses not to have understood it.

 

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 . 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[Lorentz Jr]

13 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

It is up to the repliers to convince me of the facts . 

It's up to the repliers to present the facts to you. If you're unable to understand them or unwilling to accept them, that's your business.

[JustJoe]

Just now, Lorentz Jr said:

It's up to the repliers to present the facts to you. If you're unable to understand them or unwilling to accept them, that's your business.

Ok, I understand that but are you saying that students should never question presented facts when they can think of a counter argument that may disprove those facts ? 

I have presented two queries of the balloon and plasma ball and unless these queries are satisfied with a rational answer , then I will never understand how science can say the force between two atoms is balanced . 

I understood your F+F-=F+F- = 0 net force so please give me some credit when I offer counter argument . 

I provided F ≠ F- proven by the balloon 

 

 

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 .  

Can you please explain in detail the steps of reasoning that led you to this curious conclusion.

I would conclude something quite different from the information you have supplied.

Please note for the record I am referring solely to grounding, not balloons, walls, forces, balanced etc.

Edited December 15, 2022 by studiot

[JustJoe]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Can you please explain in detail the steps of reasoning that led you to this curious conclusion.

I would conclude something quite different from the information you have supplied.

Please note for the record I am referring solely to grounding, not balloons, walls, forces, balanced etc.

Yes , I started a thread in another section that asked a question about Earths conductance and in that thread a grounding process was explained that was based on electrical dissipitation . I then considered aeroplanes are grounded so used this word as a comparitive . 

Grounding and grounded both have the word ground in it , I  would assume the reader should automatically associate the thread with the ground . 

All ''loose'' objects are grounded in my opinion by the grounding process . Perhaps more in science terms I should of said inertial rest relative to the ground . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lorentz Jr]

27 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Yes , I started a thread in another section that asked a question about Earths conductance and in that thread a grounding process was explained that was based on electrical dissipitation . I then considered aeroplanes are grounded so used this word as a comparitive . 

But those are completely different meanings. Electrical grounding means providing a conducting pathway for charges to flow through. Grounding airplanes means a human being orders the pilots to land and/or not take off.

You need to figure out what your questions are and explain what you mean by the terms in them before criticizing how people answer them.

27 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

All ''loose'' objects are grounded in my opinion by the grounding process .

And this is a good place to start. How do you define "grounded" and "the grounding process"? Citing meanings in electrostatics and aviation is worthless in discussions about gravity and bulk matter.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[swansont]

2 hours ago, JustJoe said:

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 ?  

No. A plane being grounded is a decision made by humans; it’s not a physics issue. It’s not analogous to electrical grounding.

An object at rest has no net force on it. How is that analogous to electrical grounding?

An object’s “internal conserved charge” is not involved in grounding. Grounding involves conduction electrons, which are not attached to any particular atom. 

Newtonian gravity is an attraction of masses. I’m not seeing the connection.

 

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

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 . 

Science uses more precise definitions for its terminology than in everyday speech. 

[studiot]

18 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Yes , I started a thread in another section that asked a question about Earths conductance and in that thread a grounding process was explained that was based on electrical dissipitation . I then considered aeroplanes are grounded so used this word as a comparitive . 

Grounding and grounded both have the word ground in it , I  would assume the reader should automatically associate the thread with the ground . 

All ''loose'' objects are grounded in my opinion by the grounding process . Perhaps more in science terms I should of said inertial rest relative to the ground . 

 

 

I don't see how this represents a chain of reasoning explaining how you get from my demonstrating that there is more than one meaning to the word grounding to your assertion that 

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

you are implying that scientists can't understand the every day use of wording with explanation of the context .  

Surely you can see that many implications could result from from my demonstration.
So it is encumbent upon your own goodself to sift through and discard inappropriate ones before asserting anything ?

In fact the correct implication is that scientists use particular definitions of many if not most words so that they are not confused with everyday definitions or if there are multiple definitions the appropriate one is chosen.

 

4 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

But those are completely different meanings. Electrical grounding means providing a conducting pathway for charges to flow through. Grounding airplanes means a human being orders the pilots to land and/or not take off.

You need to figure out what your questions are and explain what you mean by the terms in them before criticizing how people answer them.

And this is a good place to start. How do you define "grounded" and "the grounding process"? Citing meanings in electrostatics and aviation is worthless in discussions about gravity and bulk matter.

 

Exactly so +1

[JustJoe]

12 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

 

And this is a good place to start. How do you define "grounded" and "the grounding process"? Citing meanings in electrostatics and aviation is worthless in discussions about gravity and bulk matter.

Ok, I'll try to explain better . 

An object at inertial rest relative to the surface of a large mass can be viewed as being grounded to the surface . The conserved internal charge of the object  undergoing a grounding process than can be viewed as the conserved internal charge of the object being attracted to the conserved internal charge of the ground . This grounding process resulting in a radius between object and the surface of r=0km . 

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

In fact the correct implication is that scientists use particular definitions of many if not most words so that they are not confused with everyday definitions or if there are multiple definitions the appropriate one is chosen.

 

 

Ok, I understand this but if there isn't already a scientific meaning then how is a person suppose to describe something without using everyday words ? 

[Genady]

Yes, all mass could be grounded by mass. The question is answered. Case closed.

[JustJoe]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

An object at rest has no net force on it. How is that analogous to electrical grounding?

 

An object has a weight , an acting force measured in Newtons . I am explaining the weight is electrical grounding but I am not using grounding strict to definition . 

''Grounding, also called earthing, is a therapeutic technique that involves doing activities that “ground” or electrically reconnect you to the earth. This practice relies on earthing science and grounding physics to explain how electrical charges from the earth can have positive effects on your body.30 Aug 2019'' 

 

Obviously ignore the therapeutic technique part . 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

An object has a weight , an acting force measured in Newtons . I am explaining the weight is electrical grounding but I am not using grounding strict to definition . 

''Grounding, also called earthing, is a therapeutic technique that involves doing activities that “ground” or electrically reconnect you to the earth. This practice relies on earthing science and grounding physics to explain how electrical charges from the earth can have positive effects on your body.30 Aug 2019'' 

 

Obviously ignore the therapeutic technique part . 

This is right. The weight is electrical grounding. No questions here.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

An object has a weight , an acting force measured in Newtons . I am explaining the weight is electrical grounding but I am not using grounding strict to definition . 

''Grounding, also called earthing, is a therapeutic technique that involves doing activities that “ground” or electrically reconnect you to the earth. This practice relies on earthing science and grounding physics to explain how electrical charges from the earth can have positive effects on your body.30 Aug 2019'' 

 

Obviously ignore the therapeutic technique part . 

Gosh and I though that some scholars received a thorough grounding in the classics.

Forget the word even in its scientific use it has nothing to do with whatever you are asking about.

You might like to be informed that mechanics and electrics are different sciences following different physical laws.

You cannot explain all of mechanics in terms of electrics or all of electrics in terms of mechanics.

That is why science recognises four fundamental forces operating in the universe , gravity and the 'electric force' being two of them.

But then that is only when working within the force model of things.

There are several other models with different interpretations.

[JustJoe]

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is right. The weight is electrical grounding. No questions here.

Of course to extend on this , the Earths EM field acts as a gravitational field . If any object is within the fields magnitude , it can ''communicate'' through the ''wire'' to the ground . 

Note words in '''' are not exact definition and are a comparitive . 

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Gosh and I though that some scholars received a thorough grounding in the classics.

Forget the word even in its scientific use it has nothing to do with whatever you are asking about.

You might like to be informed that mechanics and electrics are different sciences following different physical laws.

You cannot explain all of mechanics in terms of electrics or all of electrics in terms of mechanics.

That is why science recognises four fundamental forces operating in the universe , gravity and the 'electric force' being two of them.

But then that is only when working within the force model of things.

There are several other models with different interpretations.

I don't try to explain the mechanics of everything using only electro dynamics . The electrodyamics of a moving body is not the reason for orbits . 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by JustJoe

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Of course to extend on this , the Earths EM field acts as a gravitational field . If any object is within the fields magnitude , it can ''communicate'' through the ''wire'' to the ground . 

Not words in '''' are not exact definition and are a comparitive . 

Sure, it does. Of course, it can. There is no issue with these.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, JustJoe said:

Of course to extend on this , the Earths EM field acts as a gravitational field

No, it doesn’t. Not according to mainstream physics.

Our rules require you to have a model and evidence in order to advance this as speculation.

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, JustJoe said:

An object has a weight , an acting force measured in Newtons . I am explaining the weight is electrical grounding but I am not using grounding strict to definition . 

''Grounding, also called earthing, is a therapeutic technique that involves doing activities that “ground” or electrically reconnect you to the earth. This practice relies on earthing science and grounding physics to explain how electrical charges from the earth can have positive effects on your body.30 Aug 2019'' 

 

Obviously ignore the therapeutic technique part . 

It depends on your neurological reference frame.

[JustJoe]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it doesn’t. Not according to mainstream physics.

Our rules require you to have a model and evidence in order to advance this as speculation.

I withdraw the statement , it was silly of me to say such a thing without any sort of evidence , my apologies .

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

It depends on your neurological reference frame.

What is one of them ? 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

I withdraw the statement , it was silly of me to say such a thing without any sort of evidence , my apologies .

What is one of them ? 

The one a bit to the left of the other. 

[Lorentz Jr]

On 12/14/2022 at 1:51 PM, studiot said:

I wasn't aware that Einstein contradicted himself so completely.

Here's another one:  Albert Einstein - Leiden Lecture

Quote

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

I wonder if he gave this talk in German. If he did, maybe I read a different translation some time ago that had "atoms" instead of "parts". I guess "atoms" would be confusing if people thought he meant atoms of matter.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[Eise]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I wonder if he gave this talk in German. If he did, maybe I read a different translation some time ago that had "atoms" instead of "parts". I guess "atoms" would be confusing if people thought he meant atoms of matter.

I don't know what the original language was, but I assume it was German. Here I found this German version:

Quote

Dieser Äther darf aber nicht mit der für ponderable Medien charakteristischen Eigenschaft ausgestattet gedacht werden, aus durch die Zeit verfolgbaren Teilen zu bestehen; der Bewegungsbegriff darf auf ihn nicht angewendet werden.

And that is 'parts'. But I am not sure how reliable that website is. But googling the whole sentence, I find a few other citations, but no other with the complete text, except other English translations. The few I looked at all say 'parts'.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Eise

[joigus]

Found this definition by one such Jason Preston at Quora that I like, and think is relevant to this discussion:

Quote

Sophistry means trying to persuade others using arguments that you yourself would not find persuasive. It means treating debate and teaching like war, like the goal is to make sure that you leave with the same views you entered the dialogue with. Instead of activities that are meant to help uncover the truth wherever it is found.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-sophistry

[JustJoe]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

Found this definition by one such Jason Preston at Quora that I like, and think is relevant to this discussion:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-sophistry

There once was a great artist who knew it was always better to start with a blank canvas . He knew that for every dot he painted , that dot would remain fixed in position on the canvas for all of time . 

I am not really clever but it seems to me that lots of scientists believe there is a fixed dot that they call an aether .