What my question is about: a specific definition of ground used by some people. Such definition is "ground is the point/node defined as 0 V". I want to know if this definition is correct or not:
- If it is incorrect, I ask for another definition.
- If it is correct and they mean "0 V of potential", I ask for someone to clarify me this and I don't have any further questions.
- If it is correct and they mean "0 V of voltage", I then give two reasons why that definition is misleading: 1) this definition is meaningless because you are talking about just one point when actually voltage is meaningful when talking about two points; 2) the definition implies ground is not defined as 0 V, but that it is 0 V because we measure its voltage with respect to itself. After giving each reason, I ask if I'm correct at my conclusions, and if not, I ask to tell me why.
On the other hand, the question that has been linked to my question is about:
- Ground in circuit simulators. In this context ground is defined as the node with respect to which the node voltages are measured. So, in this context, it's better to call ground as reference node.
- The fact that it is irrelevant (in the context of analysis), which node is used as reference node.
- Different ground symbols.
Clearly my question is not the same as the linked question. If you think it is, please explain why. My question is about ground defined as "the point defined as 0 V", while the linked question is about ground defined as "reference node".
The user Chris Stratton said in a comment to my question description that "The question of which this is an obvious duplicate is not about simulation but about general concepts. It is absolutely a duplicte." Assuming he is right, how would I know beforehand the definition of ground used in the linked question is a general definition? In the linked question, people were talking about circuit analysis, while my question was about circuits in homes, power systems, distribution systems, etc. My reply to him was that I didn't know the definition of ground used in the linked question, is also used in the context I was talking about (assuming he is right). I further said that if I hadn't asked my question, I wouldn't have known that in the first place. Then, he didn't reply me more. How do I know if he at the end agreed with me? Of if he still thinks my question is a duplicate?
Downvotes because I'm overthinking?
An example: It's like telling a physicist he is overthinking when he's trying to explain a phenomena, don't you think? It's like telling Einstein "You're wrong trying to disprove Newtonian mechanics, you're overthiking, you're complicating this", yet in the end, Einstein was correct.
Another example: You may have heard of the beer analogy for explaining reactive power. This analogy is good only at explaining that apparent power is never less than active power or reactive power. But this analogy is wrong, because if you look at the image people use, it gives the illusion that apparent power (the whole beer) is the sum of active power (the liquid) plus reactive power (the foam), when in reality it's the square root of the sum of active power squared plus reactive power squared. Now imagine that I explain this truth to someone, i.e. why the beer analogy is wrong, and I receive downvotes just because I overthought the analogy. Seriously?
I'm asking my question because I want to know if the definition of ground I said was correct. And if it wasn't, I asked for a more precise definition.