dalemiller

The sun probably has a maximum negative charge beyond which sufficient release of electrons would prevent further ionic density. I am a care-giver with much to do and feel that we could communicate better by PM rather than for us to embarrass each other in public. You seem not to share my encouragement that some meaningless obfuscations may be getting cleared up on this thread and I would be grateful if our simplistic exchanges could work themselves out elsewhere. I have worked long and hard on an objective for sharing what I have learned in over six decades of experience before I die. I am not asking you for much of a sacrifice.

I did not assert that all electrons would leave the earth. I that happened, I think that all molecular bonds would be lost and we would have to go without any much needed compounds. There would be no "we". No water! Neither would all excess electrons take leave: what would be here to repel them away? What makes you think that electrons need a deterrent from escaping from Earth or Sol? Under certain circumstances, electrons escape from galaxies! Its OK. Don't worry about it. Find a hobby. Discover girls. I feed the squirrels.

I did. it read: 1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. 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. Newton established that the shell exerts no gravitational force (on anything) because he has already included all shell influence into a vector sum that places net mass at the center. He denies influence from the shell because that would be processing its influence twice. He gives no exclusion to gravitational force exerted by the centralized mass upon any object inside the shell because that would not be processing such influence at all. Newton added: "In addition to gravity, the shell theorem can also be used to describe the electric field generated by a static spherically symmetric charge density, or similarly for any other phenomenon that follows an inverse square law. The derivations below focus on gravity, but the results can easily be generalized to the electrostatic force." A spherically symmetric body affects external objects electrostatically though all of its electrostatic charge were concentrated at a point at its center. With such a negative charge referred to the center with no electrons even present at that point, protons would proceed to that point only to find continuous loneliness for comely electrons. The truth can be recognizable from many approaches, but this one is the best vindication of macroscopic formations of charged particles I have yet to realize. Electrons are completely free to repel themselves away from Earth or Sol. I do not know who "we" is. Is it the group that has no idea of how solar energy leads into production of lightning? That group has a boilerplate caveat that no one really understands lightning.

The shell theorem simply takes us more quickly to my own bottom line. A shell of electrons accordingly presents the net effect of its total charge at its center. That effective negative charge at the center would be a most attractive target for a proton. The center is the very lowest point of downward travel toward which a downward-pointing electric field pushes a positive charge. This does not show up as another reason, it is simply another approach to the very same thing. The center is not occupied by electrons, it is just that the net electrical presentation of that total negative charge is referred to that point. I assume the following quote is that to which you referred. "Newton proved the shell theorem[1] saying that: A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. 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." Actually, you have shown me that, in my ignorance, I had noodled out Newton's shell theorem all by little myself. Me, the village idiot! You have missed the point. It is endothermic processes that push electrons closer together and closer to Earth. The energy applied for such action comes from thermal energy received from the sun. Conversely, electrons rise back up by exothermic activity. This clues us to the fact that it is a negatively charged earth that repels them back up. Hence, we have our evidence that the earth has a negative charge: that is to say that it contains more electrons than protons. Ask an imbecile what the atmospheric electrical charge is, and tell him about the +100 Volt rise of potential per meter of elevation and he will tell then tell you that the atmosphere is positive. If your tax pays his salary, go bother him.

Would like to see a link to show how that can be so within a downward-pointing electric field. Since the truth of the matter is not obvious, then it follows that the stability of the system I describe might not be apparent to you right off the bat. Macroscopic electrostatic formations might be counter-intuitive, but that attribute is not impenetrable. The fair-weather current of our atmosphere is claimed by meteorologists to be some two microamps of negative current per square kilometer. That represents electrons rising from the earth's surface. (They are mostly electrons that have been driven to Earth by electrical storms.) That fair weather current should appear to be due to repulsion of electrons from a negatively charged planet. The distortion of the atmosphere in a direction away from the sun should more than suggest presence of a negatively charged sun. Here, the term "negative charge" refers to an overabundance of electrons with respect to equivalent positive charged particles. Electrons themselves do not represent energy. They are just stuff, stranded upon their hosts. This post leads to a possible explanation for how and why there might be lots of extra electrons all over the place. They are nice. You can store energy with a bunch of them just by crowding them together. That is how lightning gets fixed up. The referenced description of Earth's electric field supports my contention of a negative charge upon the earth. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml The fact that you do not see logic in my posts is certainly a slam at one of us, but whom might that really be? One cannot be an understanding person if he cannot understand.

I have tried to point out to you that an electric field does not exist unless it contains at least one charged particle to be placed into its rest position. That might not be written down somewhere for you to memorize, but I can figure that stuff out and have just tried again to help you with it. What is sustained around a charged perfect sphere, for instance, is material goods: charged particles of electrical charge of the polarity in majority upon an isolated hosting body. As I have attempted to clarify, pretending constitutes a voluntary distortion of the truth. If I keep saying something that you do not understand, it seems that you will repeatedly tell me that it is wrong. It does not follow that your contradictions should discourage me from belief in what I see to be true. Again, I am not a pretender. I did not threaten action. Slander is actionable, but I sought to appeal to you that it is a shameful character flaw that you publicly demonstrate in your hopes of shaming me. It would be better to get back to the science. I was not discussing a potential difference within the sun but there will be many of them just as there are many here on Earth. That is why we keep so many voltmeters around. I discussed the counter-intuitive formation of macroscopic electrical formations. It isn't something easily explained to persons with negative attitudes. Again: Happily for electrostatic situations, an electric field is neither supplied not required when all electrically charged particles have found their resting places. The endothermic proposition endured when a charged particle was moved from resting its place provides for the exothermic process of their restoration. Please tell, why would that appeal so much to you? Why try so hard to poison the minds of those who might follow and benefit from my logic? Saying that an electrically charged particle has has found a resting place means to indicate the the net force upon the particle has gone to zero. The words "Charge" and "charged" do have many meanings. Investing energy into a capacitor can be called "charging" of the capacitor. One might hardly tap energy from an isolated sphere that we might call "charged" because it harbors an outer coating of charged particles. No one ever charged an electron. The term "slander" is applied to unwarranted accusation of pretense. Such rudeness is counterproductive to the dialog process and is against the rules of many forums. Let us say that we have a sphere containing more electrons than positive charges and that all charged particles are in rest position. We can agree here that no electric field would exist. It would require application of energy to somehow push an electron down toward the center of the sphere. Wouldn't it follow that energy would account for an electric field that would tend to bring that electron back up to the surface? No paradox would be involved for the electric field required to lift the electron back. Until that electron regained its original place, there would not be perfect spherical symmetry. The hemisphere enclosing that electron would have greater spacing of adjacent electrons than would be present in the opposite hemisphere.

John Cuthber stated "Maintaining a field in a conductor (like the one round the sun) requires energy. Stop pretending it doesn't." It is not a field around the sun that is maintained. What surrounds the sun is a population of excess electrons. How they got there was due to an exothermic process. How they stay there is by being situated at a saddle-point between gravity and electrostatic repulsion. No field is required and no field is supplied except when a charged particle has not reached its resting place. Were we to push an electron downward against the repulsion of a negatively charged hosting body, we would be investing energy to do so, and that energy would be released once that electron completed a round trip. I am an honest person standing under accusation of pretense. Theoretically, I am capable of being mistaken, but such an event would not make me guilty as charged. John Cuthber, stop your slander. In any situation where an electron will go up due to electrical repulsion, it would inherently be endowing a positive charge upon the location from which it departed. This is very basic electrostatics. This conforms to Michael Faraday's convention for a downward-pointing electric field. Once a positive charge has reached the center, it would have to go up if it were to proceed, but it is an electron that a downward-pointing electric field pushes away from the center.

I can help you if you will let me and if you can suspend your dedication to the contrary mob that presumes to judge me behind doors that are closed to me. If you seek to add to their delivery of injustice, then you are most welcome to their charming company. We can address static electricity and dynamic electrical situations separately even though we can find them algebraically merged in nature. Stable static electrical formations can and do exist that do not require a source of power. Given perfect isolation from external influence, (thus, to entertain a situation that would be neither supported nor destroyed by any source of energy) extra electrons upon a brass sphere would be totally at rest. They would have positioned themselves for equidistance from all of their immediate neighbors. Up to some limit of ionic density, these electrons would not repel themselves from the sphere. The weaker attraction of gravity from so many more neutral molecules would bring equilibrium with the stronger electrostatic force from the so many fewer particles of electrical charge. To that example of a stable electrostatic formation we might add that a radioactive impurity exists somewhere off-center within the brass that divides a molecule from one of its electrons: the positive ion will propagate its charge toward the center because of the greater number of electrons "calling to it" from that direction, and the electron will be thrust into the exact opposite direction. The final result would be as if an electron had taken leave from the center and come to rest upon the outer surface. There would be no change to the magnitude of the electrical charge upon the sphere but the electron that has been added to the surface is assured retention there due to the electrostatic pull of the un-neutralized proton now serving as a positive core resting at the center. Such transient events can mount up without any sustained source of energy from radioactive impurities. You can now be upon the threshold of understanding stable macroscopic electrical formations.

You miss my point. When the implications of measurements are incorrectly evaluated, then the popular conclusions are not pegged to the truth. Application of screwed up logic does not relate a measurement to actual facts. No energy is needed to sustain the resting condition. If you concede that a charged sphere would normally move excess particles of the polarity of charge to its outer limits, then you might agree that no further charged particle motion is required once they have so enshrouded their host. Hence no energy is needed to sustain the condition. It would require an input of energy to push such charged particles back downward. Energy can be stored by pushing like charges together. For an example, here is how scientists will discover that lightning is formed. A negative charge seeks to place all excess electrons atop the atmosphere by mutual repulsion. Solar energy evaporates water by investing in the "latent heat" required for the gaseous state. Water vapor assimilates some of the negative charge by appending electrons to some of its molecules. When water vapor condenses, it brings these extra electrons closer together, resulting in conversion of latent heat energy into potential electrical energy. Because the electrons so involved with water are confined to the surfaces of water droplets, they are driven closer together as droplets grow because of the diminishing ratio of surface area to volume. To that endothermic situation, additional energy is stored as charged droplets carry their electron burdens deeper toward the negatively charged earth. Ionic density brings sufficient repulsion between surface molecules of raindrops to keep the surfaces liquid down into the negative 40 degree region of temperature. Water within has frozen at some zero degrees Celsius. So many electrons are drives to Earth that a dynamically sustained negative ionization of the atmosphere is continuously accomplished as exothermic activity releases electrons back up to the ionosphere. Such negative electrical current produces some 100 Volts of I x R drop due to the flow flow of those excess electrons that are a manifestation of negative charge. Ironically, the fact electrons of this negative charge produces voltage differences that lead people to jump to a conclusion that these voltage measurements signify a positive electrical charge. How cn that be, since when we step onto the merry-go-round our cause is our negative charge and our effect is a contradictory conclusion. Voltage is not the same thing as electrical charge. Wikipedia might know about that, but it is the work of a committee. A camel is a horse designed by committee. No. You might become more interested in how I get to the right answer. I do not make stuff up. I figure stuff out. There is dogma out there. There are also people who bring down condemnation prior to any debate or hearing for their victims. If I spur a poster into engaging in debate by taunting him with such as "dogmatist", it is not as evil as casting down preconceived condemnations. Should I vie for the mediocrity of parroting the sayings of properly anointed celebrities? What good does that bring. Every single posting that I never make has not been made because it is something everybody already knows. Hence, there is bound to be someone not privy to more useful stuff, and it would be nice to be able to share it. If I see a flaw or even think I do, wouldn't it make a valid issue for debate?

I submit that blunders with empirical data can confound us as readily as misbegotten theory. For instance, capable and anointed scientists have proclaimed a positive atmosphere and that polarity is taken to apply to electrical charge: that would be to say that fewer electrons than protons are present in the atmosphere. Such measurements have been made for many years, true, but that is not relevant. For the measurements that I have theoretically investigated, a nominal voltage gradient of some plus 100 Volts per meter of elevation is measured within our lower atmosphere. Since I suppose our atmosphere to be negative as demonstrated by rising electrons with our negative Fair Weather Current of some two microamps per square kilometer of surface. (The electrons are being repelled by the greater Earth surface far below them on the opposite side.) Those voltage measurements they take are referenced to Earth ground where a high density of electrons await corona discharge for subsequent propagation toward the ionosphere. The +100 V per meter of elevation should be the I x R drop to be expected for those little microamps to develop across the high air resistance involved. That is my evidence that our atmosphere is of negative charge. Those same voltage measurements suggest to the casual observers that the air is positively charged! My evidence is perhaps the same evidence as theirs. Go figure: who is the idiot? Thanks for that. I didn't know that. But when and if static fusion of hydrogen proceeds, there are no electrons around down there when fusion occurs. Am a care giver, gotta run soon, will follow up with link for Michael Faraday's electric field convention if you wish. Conduction is not a problem. Macroscopic electrostatic formations are self-sustaining. It is counter-intuitive. A positive charge seeks the greater negative array below itself until an equal attraction from behind (above) arrests the charge. Thank you for affording me debate on my favorite subject. Gotta go for now. Read "Qualitative Description" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field It is a negative charge upon a host that presents a downward-pointing electric field. The convention offers me what for starts is a coin of the realm tool. It supplants my detailed construct for the same phenomenon of maybe a couple of thousand words, cutting it down to some eight and a half words or so.

The law of charge violation is admittedly a piece of speculation where it demands parity for the annihilation of electrical charges. The downward-pointing electric field understood for the earth and sun demonstrates that a positive core would be provided to both orbs. I defy you to even suggest by what mechanism nuclear fusion within a positive core could annihilate any electrons. Loss of proton count within the central core of a star would release an electron from the outer layer of that star. Ignorance of this phenomena has continued to bring scientists to surmise an electrical parity to be found in solar wind. Also, many popular misconceptions made by nontechnical personnel precludes their comprehension of macroscopic electrical formations. Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by such as you.

The longer a fallacy has existed, the greater its impact against scientific progress and the more it impresses the seeker of popular opinion.

My intended question was poorly put. I contend that the solar wind is of negative charge. As long as electrons outnumber their counterparts in any form, the wind would remain negative. Even when solar flares arise, there are many more electrons lofted than protons. Cosmic rays hardly count as solar wind because they do not come from our sun.

You say that hydrogen atoms are not here on Earth. Go to the sea shore and look around. Many of them that are combined with oxygen spend a lot of time down here. You can free them up into molecules by electrolysis.

Are you talking to me?

Understood. Let me do another take on your statement: "One needs independent verification of such a process that causes a positron to simply vanish, violating conservation of charge, since this has never been observed, anywhere. " Perhaps I have blundered into the means of observing evidence of violation of conservation of charge part 2 (" Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs.") By self-imposed conviction of that rule I pondered my theoretical conviction that our atmosphere is heavily charged with surplus electrons. "How did we borrow these electrons that belong somewhere else, and will we have to give them up when and if the lender comes back around?" The mysteries that fell into comprehension when I dismissed my notions of electrical parity none years ago (didn't know that the law had been passed) are what told the story. Repeal the law and find out just how our natural lightning works. A scientist back then crowed that an upcoming meeting of world scientists would break down the secret to how polar jets work. They had been after that for some 50 years or so. It took me three seconds to see the answer because I had freed myself from the hangup of electrical parity. It is a monkey wrench in our gears. They never got the polar jets figured out because of that. What kind of fools must we be to call the notion of electrical parity a law? We know the mechanism with hydrogen plasma for instance that sticks to positive-negative pairs. Then, on seeing the setup for positive core formation right out of Michael Faraday's electric field convention, we are forced to deny obvious chance for static fusion because it would fly in the face of a law we made up out of ignorance. Something exists but until we know it exists we say it cannot exist or we would already have known! If we had known we would not have passed a law saying it cannot exist, but now it is too late. Almost everybody knows I am wrong about a negative Earth and atmosphere. Martin Uman, I beleive, a celebrated expert states that Earth is charged negative and her atmosphere is positive by an equal/opposite fashion that puts us at zero net electrical charge. NASA measures the nominal plus 100 Volt per meter increased atmospheric voltage with elevation change using rockets. (Storms gather heat energy to store electrically by compressing electrons closer together and deeper into their hosting body. That energy is released by expansion of electron spacing seen as some alleged two microamps of negative upward current per square kilometer of Earth surface.) This manifestation of negative atmospheric charge presents positive voltage drops with elevation convincing the natives that the air has a shortage of electrons. All of those extra electrons could not exist if the parity clause were valid. Understanding how polarity imbalance works requires a bit of comprehension about how concentric formations of charged arrays of spheroid and disk formations perform. The truth about the true, negative charge upon the earth and its atmosphere is demonstrated so conspicuously by the well-known Fair Weather Current that the current misconceptions are sure to vanish. As soon as the truth becomes popular, the present polarity imbalance throughout our galaxy should bring an enthusiastic repeal of the parity clause in the Law of charge conservation. Particles of positive charge serve as nuclear fuel. When those particles are somehow changed into energy or something, they should have no way to retain their material characteristics. The energy can go off and away in all directions and can hardly continue to provide positive charge at the old location. If equivalent energy were to assemble into a positron, it would have to anti-up its own positive charge, not fgo ind some second-hand remnants of charge left behind by an erstwhile positron long ago.

So far there would only be one place to observe such a thing, but that place would be inhospitable to any human observer. From http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/c01_charge_conservation.html, this man-made law comes in two pieces. #1: The net charge of an isolated system remains constant. The only way to charge the net charge of a system is to bring in charge from elsewhere, or remove charge from the system. #2: Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs. It would be an infraction of forum rules for me to suggest an infraction of a rule of scientific sanctity. No infraction would exist from #1 rule: The isolated system would have lost one unit of positive charge from its positive core whereby, assuming a saturated negative charge existed for the isolated system, one unit of negative charge would have been released from the isolated system as solar wind. the net charge of the isolated system would be unchanged. It should not be permissible to say that #2 rule has been disobeyed. To the contrary, the rule could be applied to discover that if a proton were deleted from within the positive core where there would be no electron available, then we could deem the resulting positron to have come into existence with some way to work its way around #2 rule. If it were to travel at relativistic velocity to another galaxy it would surely decrement the isolated system by one unit of positive charge without having been destroyed. Consequential escape of one electron from the outer surface of the isolated system would still preserve conservation of charge rulings. It would seem that discovery of operational static fusion within a positive stellar core should not be considered impossible simply because it would bring on any surprise to persons who never anticipated it.

Lack of observation of actions restricted to the center of a star are quite likely to be in short supply, at least for a while. If an electron has got to be part of the deal when and where matter converts to energy, then we should stop calling it nuclear energy. Up until now, I have never heard of an electric charge that can continue to exist contrary to the algebraic bean-count of protons and electrons within the effective domain. Perhaps the positron appears with sufficient kinetic energy to escape the electrostatic confines of the central core? We might need support for such a speculation. If it did, and it cleared the galaxy as the neutrino manages to do, then we would have, by surprise, eliminated it from our concern: our star would have gained an additional electron toward a more negative or less positive account for the star's overall electric charge. We should be able to jettison some of the confusion where we can afford to ignore its impact. Essentially, you challenged the attribution of stellar charge versus solar wind as cause of Earth's atmospheric deflection. I hereby withdraw my oversimplification of solar wind composition, but proclaim my error to have no impact against my stipulation that the sun and earth share the same polarity of electrical charge as evidenced by our atmospheric deflection. That brings us to assertion that both orbs hold a downward-pointing electric field which, by definition is a force that pushes positive particles downward and electrons upward. Contemplation of the eventual effect of that phenomena lead directly to the concept of stable concentric formations of charged particles. At this point, special attention is invited to the counter-intuitive attributes of such geometry. The overwhelming net electrical influence upon a charged particle within such a structure comes from below rather than from above.

When the charged nuclear material becomes annihilated, it can no longer host the positive charge that it carried. That would have increased the negative charge by the amount of that missing positive charge were it not for the fact that the sun had been maintaining hold of that same amount of negative charge at its outer limits only because of the positive charge so decremented. One proton changed to a neutron (for instance and perhaps) takes away the attraction that holds one electron onto the solar surface. Hence, one electron departs. Net change of global charge thus equals zero. In other words, positive charge is lost due to nuclear fusion. Scratch one positron to fusion, scratch one electron to outgoing solar wind and you have a wash! Why should we not expect to find a negative charge upon the sun when the earth has such a distinct negative charge? Electrons forced down into depths of the atmosphere function as the storage of electrical energy. As such, the voltage of the lower atmosphere becomes more negative by some 100 Volts per meter of descent with respect to a reference point at the ionosphere. Would it not seem logical for us to attribute reception of so many electrons from the solar wind?

"(Physics / General Physics) the principle that the total charge of any isolated system is constant and independent of changes that take place within the system." Solar charge should remain unchanged when a measure of positive charge is annihilated because, as a consequence, an equal and opposite measure of electrical charge departs from that isolated system as solar wind. What need should I have to contradict the law of conservation of charge? I never meant to imply such exclusive presence for protons, but only to exclude them from normal presence in solar wind. We should see both electrons and protons coming from the sun after a CME. A solar flare is an eruption of solar plasma launched by regenerative (explosive) stellar fusion surrounding the vortex centered at a black hole. Equal counts of either polarity can be expected within the expelled plasma, plus a much great number of electrons rising from the negative solar shell, upon the towering flares. I omitted to include protons received as cosmic rays, but we can deal them in if you wish. We can also expect the presence of protons resulting from local ionizations. Perhaps I can seek the backup evidence you request and get back with an edit. Do you have any evidence that protons emerge as solar wind? The downward-pointing electric field does not support such action, and you imply that you doubt the validity of theoretical contemplation.

David Levy: If I understand correctly, your rationale presumes an outward drift of stars from the central galactic bulge, and therefore questions why stars have not deserted the outer limits of the bulge. That suggests that you do not consider the galactic bulge to be subject to expansion equal to such outward drift. If so, why not? (Sorry Opy, I could not resist that.) By "galactic bulge", I suppose Milky Way's accretion "disk" to have a bloated pot gut due to extreme positive charge. It should still feed matter to our SMBH, but fails now to function as an electron gun due to obesity with consequential cessation of X-radiation. All that I should be saying here is that the bulge could be expanding faster than the stars are spreading out (if they were to). Am I correct in thinking that you question the lack of a void between the disk/bulge and its nearest stars? If so, a lot of folks may have missed that point, but they did do well to doubt your thesis.

Any protons in the stellar wind would have to be thrown, not electrically repelled, from the plasma that erupts on occasions of solar flares. For some reason, they are conspicuously evident in our night sky when that happens. The electrons that prevail as solar wind emerge as excess negative particles that can be due to annihilation of positive charges by static fusion within the positive core. That core provided by a downward-pointing electric field upon the sun. If you suspect this answer to be speculation, I remind you that it is presented as a reply to your question on how the sun could feasibly maintain its negative charge. Any protons in the stellar wind would have to be thrown, not electrically repelled, from the plasma that erupts on occasions of solar flares. For some reason, they are conspicuously evident in our night sky when that happens. The electrons that prevail as solar wind emerge as excess negative particles that can be due to annihilation of positive charges by static fusion within the positive core. That core provided by a downward-pointing electric field upon the sun. If you suspect this answer to be speculation, I remind you that it is presented as a reply to your question on how the sun could feasibly maintain its negative charge.

It does not follow. As electrons being repelled from the sun, the solar wind is a manifestation of the negative charge upon the sun. The only issue claimed to be evidenced by the shape of the ionosphere is that both the sun and the earth are charged to the same polarity. As such, they both have downward-pointing electric fields as manifested by rising electrons.

None