6

A few Muslim friends claimed that putting your head to the ground like what you would do during Muslim prayers helps you by discharging your head from positive electromagnetic charges.

I personally have very weak knowledge when it comes to the field of physics and I was curious to know if this claim is correct or not.

Our body receives a huge amount of electromagnetic waves daily from electrical equipment which have become indispensable part of our lives. These also include equipment such as street lights over which we have no control. As result we are charged with electromagnetic waves round the clock causing problems such as headache, feeling of uncomfortable, laziness and at times pain. The question is how we overcome this inevitable modern day problem. A non Muslim scientist in Europe who had done extensive research into this issue concluded that the best way to remove the positive electromagneticcharge which hurts the body is by placing the forehead on the ground. This helps discharge the harmful positive electromagnetic charges.

In fact this is somewhat similar to the grounding of the buildings where any positive electromagnetic signals such as thunder discharged through the ground. According to this research and findings the best way to put the forehead on the ground is by positioning to the centre of the earth.

The claim can be found here.

  • 16
  • 13
    Where to start? We do not get "charged with EM waves". There is no such thing as "positive EM charge". Touching your head to the ground is no different from having your feet on the ground. It's pure and utter balderdash. – hdhondt Mar 4 '15 at 22:16
  • 1
  • 5
    @Mark: I'd change the word 'benefit' to 'effect', since AFAIK there is no data to suggest that having a (small) static charge is either beneficial or harmful. – jamesqf Mar 5 '15 at 4:03
  • 6
    If this guy is just praying to remove positive charges from his head, he should really evaluate his religious motivations... (Or if he thinks the reason for praying or laying the forehead on the ground while doing so has to do with said charges) Maybe it could just be that prostrating to the ground is supposed to show humility and adoration? Why do people feel a need to justify things pseudo-scientifically that don't even need justification? Anyway, the question should probably start at: Is there a charge difference between ground (feet) and head? That's an interesting question for physics.SE! – kutschkem Mar 9 '15 at 11:44
-1

The only thing I can think of that would be a "positive electromagnetic charge" is a missing electron -- static electricity.

The body is a pretty good conductor of electricity, much better than the skin. If it can discharge through your head being on the ground then it can discharge just about as easily from any body part touching the ground--or, more commonly, any grounded object. (Say, a faucet in any building with metal water pipes.)

The body has resistance to current flow. More than 99% of the body's resistance to electric current flow is at the skin. Resistance is measured in ohms. A calloused, dry hand may have more than 100,000 Ω because of a thick outer layer of dead cells in the stratum corneum. The internal body resistance is about 300 Ω, being related to the wet, relatively salty tissues beneath the skin. The skin resistance can be effectively bypassed if there is skin breakdown from high voltage, a cut, a deep abrasion, or immersion in water [...]. The skin acts like an electrical device such as a capacitor in that it allows more current to flow if a voltage is changing rapidly. A rapidly changing voltage will be applied to the palm and fingers of one's hand if it is holding a metal tool that suddenly touches a voltage source. This type of contact will give a much greater current amplitude in the body than would otherwise occur.

The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature. We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. Answers which are wholly based on a theoretical model are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What are theoretical answers?

  • 4
    This seems to be an attempt to interpret a nonsense claim as optimistically as possible, and then attempts to disprove that [arguably a strawman] via speculation. A sweating forehead may well be a better conductor than rubber shoes. Or maybe not, if it is being touched to a carpet. Who knows? – Oddthinking Apr 16 '15 at 5:56
  • @Oddthinking I do agree it's an attempt to interpret nonsense as a poorly-expressed but at least remotely sane claim. I don't see that my rebuttal is speculation, though--the body's internal resistance is low enough that it's not going to be localized in one part of the body. – Loren Pechtel Apr 17 '15 at 0:26
  • It's not enough you tell me that. Show me the real-world empirical evidence that it is true. In the worst case, show me an appropriate expert who has modelled it. – Oddthinking Apr 17 '15 at 0:34
  • 1
    Static electricity as we usually mean it involves thousands of volts but tiny amounts of current - and against this, 100K ohms is little resistance at all. A charge may accumulate & remain in the body if you have many millions of ohms, due to insulating properties of footwear or the floor beneath; it makes little or no difference what part of the body is involved. 'Anti-static' wristbands used to prevent static damage in electronics have >=1M ohm resistance - adequate to eliminate charge, and avoids adding shock risk. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antistatic_wrist_strap – greggo May 17 '15 at 16:30
  • 1
    @greggo physics.stackexchange.com/a/350207/176 – endolith Aug 4 '17 at 13:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .