# Could all mass be grounded by mass ?

## Recommended Posts

Could mass be grounded by mass ?

All mass contains a positive and a negative electrical charge and in research I've discovered that  electrical energy is grounded .

• Replies 103
• Created

#### Posted Images

Grounding of electric charges (usually electrons) means they travel through a conductor. It's a lot harder for them to travel through air.

Massive objects can travel through air or the vacuum by virtue of gravity or their momentum, so they don't need to be grounded by anything. The presence of positive and negative charges isn't really relevant.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Grounding of electric charges (usually electrons) means they travel through a conductor. It's a lot harder for them to travel through air.

Massive objects can travel through air or the vacuum by virtue of gravity or their momentum, so they don't need to be grounded by anything. The presence of positive and negative charges isn't really relevant.

36 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Could mass be grounded by mass ?

All mass contains a positive and a negative electrical charge and in research I've discovered that  electrical energy is grounded .

Joe you have an number of threads you have left hanging, all of which suggest you need to review some basics.

What do you understand by:-

Voltage

Current

Charge

Grounded

?

You need a clear picture of what these mean before you can progress to the answere to the questions you are asking.

##### Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Grounding of electric charges (usually electrons) means they travel through a conductor. It's a lot harder for them to travel through air.

Massive objects can travel through air or the vacuum by virtue of gravity or their momentum, so they don't need to be grounded by anything. The presence of positive and negative charges isn't really relevant.

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 .

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Joe you have an number of threads you have left hanging, all of which suggest you need to review some basics.

What do you understand by:-

Voltage

Current

Charge

Grounded

?

You need a clear picture of what these mean before you can progress to the answere to the questions you are asking.

Current is the flow , grounded has been discussed in another thread , voltage a magnitude , charge the polarity ?

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Joe you have an number of threads you have left hanging, all of which suggest you need to review some basics.

What do you understand by:-

Voltage

Current

Charge

Grounded

?

You need a clear picture of what these mean before you can progress to the answere to the questions you are asking.

P.s Does this work ?

Edited by JustJoe
##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

You are assuming passing through air rather than using the Earths field as a ''medium'' .

What do you mean by "Earth's medium". Electrons can travel through the vacuum, but they usually start out trapped inside a conductor, and it's hard for them to get out of it.

17 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 .

We're not talking about a lack of forces, we're talking about the presence of forces. Because they have to overcome the resistance of air molecules. Massive objects can do that. Electrons can't.

17 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 .

You could say gravity is an infinite number of "forces", because objects are attracted to an infinite number of other objects. But Albert Einstein calculated that gravity is about zero forces because it's really the curvature of space-time.

##### Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

because it's really the curvature of space-time.

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 .

Edited by JustJoe
##### Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 ?

Small wonder your understanding of electrical phenomena is all over the shop.

Without going into sub-nuclear particle physics which would add nothing to the clarity here are my answers.

Charge is the basic property possessed by some, but not all matter to which we attribute electrical phenomena.

At all levels of analysis we call matter which posseses this property a charge carrier.

When charge carriers move from place to place we call the flow of such carriers a current.

By itself no energy is involved in a single particle of matter possessing a charge. The energy arises as a result of interaction of two or more charges.

When two or more charges interact, they set up a potential field which we measure as a voltage.

Grounded is an adjective describing a ground or earth which is a circuit theory term not a physics term referring to a circuit node or point which does not change in voltage regardless of how much current flows into or out of it.

Please note it is possible to have a current without a voltage or a voltage without a current.

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 .

You're confusing the two sides of the theory. To quote John Archibald Wheeler,

Quote

Matter tells spacetime how to curve; curved spacetime tells matter how to move.

Mass is the cause of curvature in space-time, and curvature is the cause of gravity.

14 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

for something to curve , it would require physical substance.

Yes, that's right. Although it's important to not confuse "physical substance" with ordinary matter, which is something that exists in the vacuum, whatever it is.

Anyway, Einstein fully accepted the existence of the vacuum as an "ether" that gets curved. The only aspect of the ether that he rejected is the idea that it has a state of motion, because no such thing has ever been detected experimentally.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
##### Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Small wonder your understanding of electrical phenomena is all over the shop.

Without going into sub-nuclear particle physics which would add nothing to the clarity here are my answers.

Charge is the basic property possessed by some, but not all matter to which we attribute electrical phenomena.

At all levels of analysis we call matter which posseses this property a charge carrier.

When charge carriers move from place to place we call the flow of such carriers a current.

By itself no energy is involved in a single particle of matter possessing a charge. The energy arises as a result of interaction of two or more charges.

When two or more charges interact, they set up a potential field which we measure as a voltage.

Grounded is an adjective describing a ground or earth which is a circuit theory term not a physics term referring to a circuit node or point which does not change in voltage regardless of how much current flows into or out of it.

Please note it is possible to have a current without a voltage or a voltage without a current.

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 .

14 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Yes, that's right. And Einstein fully accepted the existence of the vacuum as an "ether" that gets curved. The only aspect of the ether that he rejected is the idea that it has a state of motion, because no such thing has ever been detected.

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 .

Edited by JustJoe
##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

In my opinion any EM field that is binded with matter could be viewed as an aether .

In my opinion, the simplest explanation of fields is that they're all oscillatory modes or other properties of the vacuum/ether. Roger Penrose has modeled the vacuum as a "spin network".

Physicists talk about fields as being "fundamental", or "liquids", but I would say they're too complicated to be fundamental "building blocks of nature", and real liquids don't overlap each other.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
##### Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 .

That could be a reasonable question except that matter refers to any particle with mass.  (which for your information means not photons)

A neutron is a particle with mass that has no charge. A Uranium atom has only 92 protons and  92 electrons but 143 - 146 neutrons.

18 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Yes, that's right. And Einstein fully accepted the existence of the vacuum as an "ether" that gets curved. The only aspect of the ether that he rejected is the idea that it has a state of motion, because no such thing has ever been detected.

I would be very grateful for a proper reference to any of Einstein's writings or lectures stating this ?

##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

In my opinion, the simplest explanation of fields is that they're all oscillatory modes or other properties of the vacuum/ether. Roger Penrose has modeled the vacuum as a "spin network".

Physicists talk about fields as being "fundamental", or "liquids", but I would say they're too complicated to be fundamental "building blocks of nature", and real liquids don't overlap each other.

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 .

Edited by JustJoe
##### Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

I would be very grateful for a proper reference to any of Einstein's writings or lectures stating this ?

Quote

the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
##### Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

That could be a reasonable question except that matter refers to any particle with mass.  (which for your information means not photons)

A neutron is a particle with mass that has no charge. A Uranium atom has only 92 protons and  92 electrons but 143 - 146 neutrons.

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 ?

Edited by JustJoe
##### Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

In my opinion, the simplest explanation of fields is that they're all oscillatory modes or other properties of the vacuum/ether. Roger Penrose has modeled the vacuum as a "spin network".

Physicists talk about fields as being "fundamental", or "liquids", but I would say they're too complicated to be fundamental "building blocks of nature", and real liquids don't overlap each other.

+1 I like that descriptive

##### Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

+1 I like that descriptive

Thanks. 🙂

##### Share on other sites

The description I typically use for fields is a collection of values under geometric treatment but yours is excellent

##### Share on other sites

It's similar to what Maxwell worked on back in the late 1800s, except it's more complicated because there are almost 20 known fields now. Maxell's model had little mechanical things of some kind spinning inside cells with rollers around them to allow the spinning. I'm still reading about Penrose's ideas, but I have to guess that they're based on the $e^{i\omega t}$ terms in quantum wave functions, since they obviously at least suggest some kind of spinning activity.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
##### Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

It's similar to what Maxwell worked on back in the late 1800s, except it's more complicated because there are almost 20 known fields now. Maxell's model had little mechanical things of some kind spinning inside cells with rollers around them to allow the spinning. I'm still reading about Penrose's ideas, but I have to guess that they're based on the eiωt terms in quantum wave functions, since they obviously at least suggest some kind of spinning activity.

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 .

Edited by JustJoe
##### Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Thank you for this, I wasn't aware that Einstein contradicted himself so completely.  +1

But then perhaps these were just fireside musings a process many thinkers on the subject have indulged themselves in.

On page 176 he says

Quote

But then on the next page he says

Quote

But he does not explain how something that has no physical properties can be either isotropic or homogenous.

48 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

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 ?

I have offered to describe non controversial standard theory about your claims but since you wish to dismiss them and substitute what I consider wild assed guesses of your own which would be fine if you were to follow the rules of speculations and provide solid derivations and other evidence of their validity.

I will leave you until this happens or a moderator starts closing threads as being outwith the rules.

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Thank you for this, I wasn't aware that Einstein contradicted himself so completely.

But then perhaps these were just fireside musings a process many thinkers on the subject have indulged themselves in.

On page 176 he says

But then on the next page he says

But he does not explain how something that has no physical properties can be either isotropic or homogenous.

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 .

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have offered to describe non controversial standard theory about your claims but since you wish to dismiss them and substitute what I consider wild assed guesses of your own which would be fine if you were to follow the rules of speculations and provide solid derivations and other evidence of their validity.

I will leave you until this happens or a moderator starts closing threads as being outwith the rules.

##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

But he does not explain how something that has no physical properties can be either isotropic or homogenous.

I think by "neither homogeneous nor isotropic" he just means "not flat". Those are properties.

I could have sworn I saw a video of him giving one of his talks, where he says the ether can't be made of "atoms", but I can't seem to find it anymore. And I don't think he meant atoms of normal matter (although I could be wrong about that). I think he was saying that the vacuum/ether somehow exists without being made of any kind of cells or particles that can have a state of motion.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you for this, I wasn't aware that Einstein contradicted himself so completely.  +1

But then perhaps these were just fireside musings a process many thinkers on the subject have indulged themselves in.

On page 176 he says

But then on the next page he says

But he does not explain how something that has no physical properties can be either isotropic or homogenous.

I have offered to describe non controversial standard theory about your claims but since you wish to dismiss them and substitute what I consider wild assed guesses of your own which would be fine if you were to follow the rules of speculations and provide solid derivations and other evidence of their validity.

I will leave you until this happens or a moderator starts closing threads as being outwith the rules.

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

The above is supporting evidence of a grounding gravity theory .

##### Share on other sites

The actual reason why electricity cannot be "grounded" --or, if you will, there is no similar principle for gravity, as there is for electricity, as "grounding of a distribution of charges and currents"-- is that electricity is polar, while gravity is not. Charges can be positive or negative, while mass is always positive and the interaction is always attractive.

Positive distributions of charge have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity.

Negative distributions of charge have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity.

Distributions of mass have a natural place to set the zero for the potential: Spatial infinity.

This is because, far enough away from the distribution of either charge or mass, the field always "looks" monopolar- except for radiation. You can see this from a totally general multipolar expansion of the electrostatic field. Gravity, as we know, is described by GR, but the pre-relativistic approach is enough for the purposes of this discussion. If anything, consideration of GR would make the analogy even more implausible.

For electric charge, actually, there are deep principles of physics that tell us that far enough away from the distribution of charge, the monopolar term must go to zero. This is not exactly equivalent to what a recent poster said that "total charge must be zero," or something to that effect. It just means that, at large enough distances, charges will screen each other so as to make the electrostatic field go down at large enough distances. IOW: You just cannot take excess positives to one region and excess negatives to another at arbitrarily large distances.

The Earth is a relatively good conductor and can take as many excess electrons as regular physical processes near its surface can produce without substantially changing its global electric charge --which is zero. So you can set its electrostatic potential to V=0, while keeping consistent with V=0 at spatial infinity

You cannot do that with gravity... The upshot --if nothing else was understandable-- is: Gravity cannot be cancelled.

Edited by joigus
minor correction

## Create an account

Register a new account