dalemiller

Thank you for your point of view.

It is kind for anyone dubious of my credibility to let me speak. (That is not a reproach.) It is so easy for doubters to presume to characterize the writer time after time, and perhaps naive for a writer to proceed under consistent attack. If I suggest logic to be worthwhile I can be made to appear to rely on nothing else. If I assert belief that dogma can be found within current consensus, it can be made to have me rejecting all work of all scientists. However I do declare that if I am wrong about a negative bias to be prevalent, then almost everything I seek to tell is folly. Let me tackle that first. The reference below suggests the total vertical voltage drop along our atmosphere to be 200 KV. Other estimates range up to at least 300 KV. http://hypertextbook...haEdwards.shtml Hence, taking that potential as 250 KV, we should measure Earth’s electric field as 250 plus or minus 50 KV from Earth surface to the loftiest electron atop the atmosphere. Near the ground, we can measure some +100 volts IR drop per meter of elevation. The negative current involved for this voltage drop is some two micro amps per square kilometer. The source potential delivering such upward electron flow lies at the earth’s surface where sufficiently high density of electrons or negative ions is present due to a preponderance of negative lightning and the fall of negatively charged rain. It is of no significance that minor occasions of reverse lightning polarity can be found. It can be produced by “Flywheel effect” familiar to electrical engineers. It can deliver excess current for a normal discharge whereby magnetic flux is built up encircling the conductor (the lightning bolt) during current up-slope and then as the current subsides, collapsing magnetic flux forces continued current in the same direction. That action can leave a cloud with an over- reduced negative potential seen to us as a positive voltage. Few people bear an everyday awareness that they walk around on some -250,000 Volts and even swim in it, and yet it is quite harmless. Electricians think of Earth-ground as the epitome of zero Volts. That +100 Volts per meter of atmospheric elevation from surface actually signifies a voltage that is that much less negative than the reference taken at the surface. True electrical neutrality is close at hand beneath the surface, (but too tricky to really get to) and should also be present far up where a highest electron rises no further (virtually unattainable). An overabundance of electrons on Earth seems intuitively obvious from the foregoing explanation. If I am shown how that is not so, please explain and/or let me try again. An electron atop our atmosphere would not represent storage of any energy. An endothermic process can store energy simply by pushing electrons downward, or in any other way, crowding them closer together. Another way to store energy would be to ionize molecules or find them that way and pull them apart. I venture that an ongoing widespread search for involvement such a process comes from dogma in the woodwork, no offence. To reiterate such a process of charge seperaton to build up electrical energy, one would have to go in all different ways at once in pursuit of the seperate charges, just to re-stretch the polarities farther apart. That is no way to concentrate energy! On the other hand, to compress like-charges together, you can reiterate over and over without jumping around, and using ever so much less working space as you go It would be paradoxical to suppose that with an Earth-surface density of negative ions equivalent to some 250 negative kilo-volts, that we should find one meter above, a true potential of +100 volts. The actual equivalent range of voltage from an inch above Earth surface, to the highest electron aloft to be from some minus 250,000V to zero Volts aloft. There is an overwhelming consensus that opposes my contention due to longstanding practices of atmospheric measurement. The word on the street is that positive ionization has been measured for ages. "IR drop" was measured, not the polarity of atmospheric charge. Ionic density was estimated from direct measurement of atmospheric conductivity: a constant current passed through atmospheric sample, and that conductivity relies on ionic density of either polarity. Hence, no measurements were being taken for determination of the ionic polarity! An error made generations ago stands today only in inadvertent deference to the credibility of long-standing determinations. It is seen here that rejecting a premise on the basis of longstanding beliefs, as decried so well by Carl Sagan, is an unfortunate obstacle to progress.

Thank you for your opinions. I am working on it. I have to construct it more carefully. Don't have much time.

Am still trying to figure out how you find circular thinking in my work. You reacted to discovery of Noether's exception using a flat statement without supporting logic, that it wouldn't apply because the rule could be derived by an alternate mathematical approach. So what? There is a broadly held notion that I once shared, that the universe contained equal counts of electrons and protons. That natural compulsion to believe so might be the foundation for shunning thoughts of any exclusive annihilation of protons, and for believing stars and planets to be of zero electric charge. "Noether's statement "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." demonstrates her law to provide exceptions to the rule. That is all it takes. Hence, when you challenged that I "threw down her law" by presenting the inevitable configuration of stars for some static fusion, you were mistaken. I therefore carry no burden to justify the electric bias resulting from static stellar fusion. The exception simply means that you do not have a case by that avenue. Your circular thinking gimmick just a distraction. You have confessed determination to denigrate me out of personal resentment. As a care giver, I find that responding to perpetual hounding from you becomes an insufferable drain on my valuable time. I think we are supposed to be a little more high class here. You seem to doubt that any electric charge can remain on the earth. Electrons have mass and Earth has mass. Up to a certain limit, electrons can be piled onto the earth and stick around because of gravity. It is quite easy for negative ions to remain here because they have additional ballast. I do to have any evidence to support my presumption. You do not ask for evidence about morphing neutrinos. You know that you would not understand it, and besides, the proposition was made by people wearing white lab coats and pocket protectors. But I think maybe they were fudging to get through the day in spite of neutrino shortages. Maybe static fusion could have made the same save. Scientists have declared the earth to have a downward-pointing electric field. That means, to thinking people, that the earth is charged with extra electrons. Until you or anyone can suggest that our source of electrons is from anywhere except the sun, I would have to assume that it too is negative. There is lots of other reasons if you do not like that one. Actual scientists have been known to entertain theoretical approaches to astrophysics because of the extensive travel time involved in retrieving solid evidence. Thinking is not a crime to be punished with loud noises or little words in huge letters. How come you did not challenge Swansont when he contradicted my claim of a negative atmosphere with that write-up from Mr. Goodman? It was just junk. It did not present a reason for negative-charged lightning to be coming from a positive-charged sky. I made thin fudge to say how air and charged droplets created charged droplets. It did not prove anything. When I was a kid, bullies dealt in a cowardly way: If one was hitting you another felt safe in joining his effort. I warn you not to get infected with the beliefs of another bully here. He cannot understand that the last electric field expires within a closed conductor after the last charged particle has been placed at rest. This causes him to publicly condemn my understanding of Gauss. He disagrees with Michael Faraday about our downward-pointing electric field on Earth. He believes that when you heat plasma, it gets cooler. He has never acknowledged that most of the sky above is far below your feet on the other side of the earth. That last one gives him proof that the sky is positive.

My presumption of static stellar fusion within positive cores was faulted for its potentiality of violating the law of conservation of charge. If no electron could avail itself within the core, then two of you suggested that no positive charge could be destroyed in the privacy of the core. We found Noether provided a waiver of the law that would apply to conversions between matter and energy. That took me off the hook as a violator of anything or anybody. What circle do you see? By the way, I had somehow overlooked your link to Jason Goodman's message. He gives no proof, took no measure of ionic polarity. His final text makes strange statements: "The movement of air and charged cloud particles within them separates electrical charges vertically; lightning then transfers the extra electrons at the base of the cloud to the ground. Positive charge at the top of the cloud leaks into the upper atmosphere. This recharges the fair weather electric field." Why "charged cloud particles"? They do not get blasted by wind, they just go along with it. How would that separate electrical particles? Why would positive charge leak up toward positive air instead of being pulled down to the negative ground? How does it prove anything. That write-up is a good reason for me not to follow the crowd. An awful lot of posting seems dedicated to generalizing upon my deficiencies instead of the technical issues. I would like to explain what Mr. Goodman was trying to talk about.

If I ever said I want ion transport, I misspoke. Propagation attends well enough where it can or must. Even in a fluid medium, transport is not essential. There are no perfect insulators and plenty of time for the charges to respond to electric fields. Zeno didn't fool me for a minute. Zeno’s falacy was his own, not the fault of logic. I thought that I had already established the reasoning that takes the compression of noonday atmosphere and the outstretching of the night side sky. Well tested basic electronics establishes that like charges repel. I now think that I was wrong to propose that influence on RF propagation tells the story. It does to me but not to you. Too many other variables involved. Hoping to bring on more easily accepted evidence soon. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that the sun would not have imposed its charge upon the earth. There is such a thing as dogma. Fudging explanations about effects they do not understand get a scientist through the day. Oblivious to alternatives, some have written that solar wind is a 50/50 mix of electrons and protons (plasma). Radio engineers oblivious to an electron shell above the atmosphere could just tell a story about ions that persist throughout the night to explain extended rf range. There is no shame in unchaining one’s brain from adherance to words of duly annointed athorities. In upper US, our NSF tell or told that ice crystals striking super-cooled water somehow causes lightning. (But they confess ignorance and attack anyone who could set them straight. For crying out loud, when raindrops have raised their enveloping membrains to voltages tantamount to explosion into thunderbolts, their the outer moleules have such ionic density that counter intermolecular gravitation sufficiently to prevent solidification down to more than -40 degrees temperature. Naturally, the centers of those raindrops are frozen solid. An imbecile can see that the NSF story is true. But no one else. But that is all part of rock solid true facts existing official approved solutions. Hence, free to think, it was easy to overlook dogma contradicting validity of my proof. Although this is Speculations, I withdraw my reckless conjecture that Earth and Sol share the same polarity. (I wonder why electrons flee from our sun.) There is no conflict to these conclusions warranted by reports of protons to be found in the solar wind. Neutral molecules already traveling among electrons of solar wind can become ionized in transit. Cosmic rays are usually made up from particles of positive charge. Solar flare activities launch heated plasma. It seems likely that Earth's negative charge would have been delivered from the sun via solar wind. The latitude extended to astrophysicists because of the restricted opportunities for immediate investigation should hardly be denied in a speculations department. The understandable indulgence for a radial downward-pointing electric field on Earth is coin-of-the-realm acceptable theory supportable by voltage measurements of atmosphere. It is covered in a recent posting. If it is or were possible to exert sufficient pressure and containment of protons on Earth, empirical data might be restricted to insufferable side effects upon the countryside. Not in my neighborhood please. If conversion of matter to energy were not to occur, then the dissipative mechanism waver of conservation of charge would not be needed. If it does occur, then we have our dissipative situation. Scientific scrutiny is just what I seek. Above, I replied to a challenge that I could not take seriously. Nuclear fusion was certainly the issue on the table. The question could only trick me out of appreciating the validity of my belief. How could that have been scientific scrutiny?

I have done both but for reasons unknown have failed to discover how to get it across to you. 1. The earth must be holding a negative charge because it is repelling electrons as far away as it can. The evidence is in the reported measurements of Fair Weather Current. You could measure the voltage drop along a vertical length of atmosphere. Using either a special radioactive probe that connects the atmosphere to the high side of a voltmeter, or use an electrostatic voltmeter. From Earth ground, the air would measure some +100 Volts per meter of elevation. That voltage would indicate that the Fair Weather current (conventional) (do it on a nice day) is developing that much voltage across the intervening atmosphere. That voltage signifies the action of a negatively charged body. A good electrical engineer could explain it to you. The key caveat here is to avoid mistaking a voltage drop for being any manifestation of the ion density or polarity. In my humble opinion, that very stumbling block has been stunting the growth of some important scientists. 2. The ionosphere (an upper layer of the atmosphere is known to rise at night, evidenced by the longer-range communications thus afforded short wave communications in the night time. This is evidence of the sun being of like charge with the earth. What other explanation would there be? I see little reason to ignore that evidence because it makes so much sense. A good radio amateur could explain it to you. I am not saying that these interpretations are popular although I cannot understand why not. Nevertheless, science deals with truth, not with popularity. 3. Noether's Theorem provides an exception (not a violation) to rule of the law of charge conservation. "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." Further, from wiki: "A dissipative system is a thermodynamically open system which is operating out of, and often far from, thermodynamic equilibrium in an environment with which it exchanges energy and matter." That is exactly what I wass talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system

I am obliged to provide evidence and am not sure if you mean evidence that our atmosphere bears a negative charge. In case you do, then I invite attention to the Fair Weather Current of an alleged value of some minus two microamps per square kilometer of Earth surface. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/TerryMathew.shtml That is a vertical rise of electrons. If you agree that most of the earth's charge is behind those electrons, then it seems that you should agree that such a charge must be negative in order to have repelled those electrons upwards. If we were dealing with a simple hollow globe, we might need to provide some sort of test stimulus to evaluate our total net electrical charge. However, due to endothermic dislocation of outer charged particles down to the surface wherever it is raining, we have a steady flow of test particles, namely those rising electrons. How am I wrong, or where am I unclear?

Loads of evidence is right out there. All I have to do is point it out, not supply it. Please advise of what evidence you require from me.

Rather than a conjecture, I see direct logical reasoning applied to existing scientific understandings. Fair Weather current demonstrates validity of a downward-pointing electric field. Negative ions go up, positive ions go down. Down takes us to the center of the globe. Logic shows the sun to have similar negative charge. Special evidence would be needed for one to presume that static fusion could not occur because a law seems to say that maybe this could not happen. Onward and upward, but drag down the guy who figures something out. Shame on him for not using fancy loops and squiggles of mathematics. Or is it shame on you for getting outclassed by a run-of-the-mill slob. I got a bunch of evidence. Why would I seek polite dialog (lol) to share with decent intelligent people. I suspect the widespread supposition of a positive charge on our atmosphere to be mistaken because of easily misinterpreted data. But I would never accuse a thinking person of being a pseudoscientist just for making a mistake, or worse yet, for telling me something that I was not capable of understanding. The link contains the statement: "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." You point out that we can arrive at proof of her law from an alternative approach. If the alternative proof is valid then it is equivalent. How can you say that it would negate the truth of her statement: " In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law."? Further, if that were simply OK, then what justifies your insistence that I select whichever alternative that would make me wrong? In that I have countered your assertion that our atmosphere is charged positive, and you drop the hot potato without acknowledging the validity of my case, then I must realize that your objective is to defeat me by whatever smoke and mirrors tricks lie within your impressive education. A fool is not wrong simply because he is a fool.

Thanks. From what she says, I see that she pays out a little latitude. "Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." Thanks again. My case fits the exception that proves the law. The law is ever so good and I embrace its glorious exception.

What hairs do you split to conclude that I told you that? I did tell Swansont something like that but not you. Conservation is very nice. Even conservation of charge, but we don't have to be control freaks and bring in the police. It is an option: if you are a proton and want to take an electron with you, end it all amid a plasma. To go alone, go to the the center of a star. In Carl Sagan's time, he said that there no authorities in science. Now that you are here it seems to be a different story. Where do you get that "extraordinary claim" business. Do you know just who I might be contradicting? Is he or she a Mensan or something? How can I get a job like that?

Conservation of Charge is a tenuous law: It was fancied because no instance had been conceived at the time for how a positive charge could be destroyed without simultaneous annihilation of an electron. Apparently, the only fusion of hydrogen explained at the time dealt with what I call dynamic fusion within plasma. At that time, apparently no one had an understanding of macroscopic electrostatic formations (MEF). You probably not cannot copy MEF information out of a book because I have not published it since I figured it out. MEF leaves no mystery as to why the law requiring electrical parity is mistaken. No one could ever say that the law is cast in concrete. Certainly, Carl Sagan would not. I have no idea who is empowered to pass such a law. The matter was not determined in my presence. The presumption of static nuclear fusion seems a less drastic explanation of cosmic acceleration than the Dr. Kaku's conclusion that the law of gravity has hit its expiration date. You have not found grounds to deny the formation of a core of positive charge within stellar centers where no electrons lurk. In your mind, would a man-made rule of thumb trump the potentiality of static fusion without the presence of electrons? Would you be more indulgent of Dr. Kaku's determinations? He sort of hired a circus to parade his opinion on TV.

Yes. Wrong. Yes.

I hope that I have mentioned that by saying "global", I mean all of the earth including its atmosphere. The surface should contain an ion density relating to more that that of a 200 kilo volt potential with respect to a true neutral reference. That is not to equate voltage per se with electrical charge. From there, a negative charge is dynamically sustained upon the atmosphere all the way up to the ionosphere where electrical neutrality would be reached. All of this, from surface to ionosphere would constitute our electron shell. I have used the word "global" as an inclusive description of the whole nine yards. Do you see what I mean about why that with a negative shell, the downward "push" upon a test proton is really created by the greater attraction upon the proton by the greater attraction centered directly below that proton? Were the proton near the closest part of the shell (upwards to our eyes) almost all of the electrons upon the globe and within its atmosphere contain some downward component of their direction from the test proton. This conforms to the basic equivalence of electric current: Franklin fancied of positive particles, and that equivalence to electron motion in the opposite direction remains as definition of conventional electric current. It would be mistaken of us to mistake the sky above us as a significant contender against all of the sky surrounding the earth. I did in posting #19

I could explain why I think the sun's negative charge doesn't go away. However, it might be perceived as less controversial if I first attempted to support fundamental principles under current debate on this thread. Those principles would be involved with my explanation. Pertaining to your admonition that I am "inventing meaningless phrases like "further ionic density". (which is, incidentally, word salad)": You have now shown me what you consider to be "word salad". Then no, I cannot answer your question now that I know what word salad means. I see now that word salad can be quite meaningful indeed. "Further ionic density" should suggest an increased proximity of ions whereby additional electrical energy has been stored. Furthered ionic density should suggest that more ions would be contained per unit volume. I do want to apologize for motivating you to keep putting me on the defensive. Sorry that I cannot help you.

Our feet point to more sky than our heads. That test proton is attracted toward the greater negative charge of the earth (all of it, solid, liquid gas,) From any position down along a radius of Earth short of the center, there is more negative charge in that direction. The 6 db per octave loss between point sources gives way fixed attraction despite range. At twice the distance from a wall of electrons, the electron count within a given scope quadruples the electron count. For that sneaky reason, a first proton goes down until the pull from behind equals the remaining pull from the opposite side. Of course, this makes sense only if one entertains the global charge to be negative. If anyone could divest me of this conviction of a negative global charge, it would set me free to go back to Sudoku. I won't spike the ball if anyone ever agrees with me, but a lot hinges on that charge polarity. Hoping that by charge polarity, we both are speaking of which charged particles outnumber the other upon the hosting body.

Can the "word salad" crapola. My poor best is all I can do. On Earth's surface, that is just what is going on. Electrons leave. It is called The Fair Weather Current, and amounts an alleged two microamps per square kilometer of surface. They join up with air molecules to form ions. If you think about it, the extra electron on that ion cannot manage to repel itself because to do so it would have to get into two places at once. There is bound to be an upper limit. If ion density became strong enough, electrons would flee into space. However, electrons from the solar wind would simply decline to stick around if we already have our limit. (Like, one might splat into the sunny side, and another one somewhere gives up and takes French leave.

My knowledge comes from personal experience. So, for me to tell what I know, you demand that I have shoveled the whole driveway. I do not come to catch up with you. You bar persons without a PhD. When the PhD's couldn't make something work, they came and got me. No brag, just fact. It is clear to me that you do not understand about the earth's downward-pointing electric field, because it conforms to my interpretation of the shell theorem. It is a negative net charge upon Earth that points its electric field toward the center of the earth. Your rebuttal of this should be more detailed than name-calling me as being a pseudo-scientist. The great number of people who believe our atmosphere to be positive does not make that belief true. I can prove to intelligent people that the belief is false. If you disagree with me and do not hear me out, why would I be indulgent that your mathematically derived supplementation of Newton's Shell Theorem? You disparage my work as nonscience BS. You suggest that I should learn some physics as though I knew nothing. I know good stuff that I would share with the world, but you denigrate me in cowardly ways to destroy my opportunity to do so. I would not bring information to the forum if I thought it was already there. Yet, you complain that I have said things that no-one has ever heard of. They will hear of it if you stop blocking my way! The key to my findings has been to realize that our atmosphere is negatively charged. It is most likely that you disagree and I invite you to debate the issue. The idea is to keep it simple. I realized that a negative atmosphere gave me complete insight upon atmospheric lightning, and labored long and hard to find out how that bias comes to be.

Earth has a downward-pointing electric field. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml Hence a positive charge is pushed downward. Just saying that it won't can hardly be very basic electrostatics. This is a science forum. No support or proof was given in Swantson's contradiction. Saying "This is very basic electrostatics." is just a bluff. A positive charge being pushed downward is heading for the center. All that stops it from getting all the way to dead center would be the presence of other positive charges that have already gotten there. Nevertheless, we can say it is still seeking the center as it pushes down upon the existing ball of protons. His statement seems to be nothing but a desperate attempt to evade detection of his folly and injustice.

I supported my claims with Isaac Newton's Shell Theorem. Swansont added his own made-up stipulation that no objects within a shell can respond to the pull of the center of gravity. It is he who I think is the dummy. Can't you get rid of him?

Of course not. Surely you could see that I was faulting your delivery of a needle hidden in a haystack. Do you reject the downward electric field attributed to Earth? Do you reject the negative charge upon Earth and its atmosphere? I invent no physics. I apply scientific principles that are well known and right under our noses. The general condemnation with which you bully me is too vague to afford me chance to defend myself. You harm those who cannot harm you back. I see no contradiction from the math. I understand the words of Newton. Gravity cannot be eclipsed. The starting point is just where tuition takes me. I am a crackpot because I disagree with you. The electrostatic electron gun proves me right: a cylindrical anode presents itself as a point target to form a pencil beam of electrons. Carl Sagan said it well: Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Chickens might form such a shell and there are folks around who would suck them out. It would take some doing to get it into space. My failure to share your belief does not mean I ignore the link. I needn't math up to evaluate credibility of everything in the link. I could as well prove to you of miracles by linking you to a bible. You may have hit the nail on the head about my understanding of the ancients: your understanding might just be that much more superior to mine. I could be real stupid. Nevertheless, my intuitive reservations guide me to see transient electric fields existing within a closed conductor whenever an electrically charged particle has been dislocated from its resting place. The field would go to zero when all such particles are back in place. This precludes an orphaned electrical particle wandering aimlessly. A disturbed charged particle could produce a field, the field would cause the migration, the migration could produce the null, null could "prove" that no disturbed particle could produce a field. Laboratory apparatus doesn't take long with such transients. In a galaxy, a transient can last many lifetimes. If a shell of electrons surrounding an atmosphere gets some particles pushed downward or crowded together in any other way, they are thereby storing electrical energy. Release them and they get pushed back out. Above, the electron shell would have closed to afford equal spacing between adjacent particles. Wouldn't your interpretation deny that those pushed-in electrons would become restored to their original positions? Cause and effect can so easily be confused between each other that it behooves us to be more patient with each other.

Intuitively, wouldn't your interpretation invite a scenario whereby, within a hollow orb, gravity referred to the shell's center would attract external objects toward the center of gravity, but such objects would never have cause to pause at the center. Once an external object passes back out through the opposite side of the shell. It would coast right through the shell, not to begin deceleration until it was again external to the shell. For every "landing" there would be a nearly immediate relaunching. Had Newton missed the point when he stated: "2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell."? It would be so interesting to realize that Newton was perhaps unwittingly, directly predicting the formation of SMBHs at galactic centers. He was also predicting a more direct manifestation of Michael Faraday's Electric Field's production of positive charged cores centered by negative charged shells. The issue of a zero electric field within a closed conductor may provoke some misunderstanding unless one observes that zero field is accomplished by the transfer of each charged particle within into its resting place. Macroscopic electrostatic formations conform to my understanding of Gauss, Faraday and Newton. In a negatively charged hosting body, the entire negative charge appears as though at the center even though the all excess negatively charged particles creating that charge lie within upon the outer shell. Seeking electrons, protons are gulled into going straight for that charge referred to dead center. No neutralization occurs there because of nature's slight of hand.