dalemiller

Maybe neither of us is as bad as we seem right now. I am not totally unable to take criticism and you might not realize how punchy a poster can get from negative responses. If I thought someone needed a clue or two, I might not take him down in a world-wide public scene. Especially when and if he is seeking to share a finding with people on the edge of lending a bit of credibility. When you put me down in public I fear you do the same for my message. Being primarily a care-giver and secondarily a science freak, there is less time for the writing and that cramps my style. If responses dealing with the technical issues were given first crack at a posting before the shrinks did their deeds it would take a little headwind out of this thankless uphill battle. Its like a law of nature, I just want to lay my eggs before I die. And I have a wife of 57 years' expert nagging in case you do forget to tell me what. Thanks for not being like Johnny boy with his preposterous postings of "preposterous".

In the case of any spheroidal hosting body, "down" seems a pretty apt description for anything moving toward the center of such a form. Likewise, "upwards", from any point would be into the opposite direction. This might make sense to me and many others even if it doesn't make sense to you. Support of the electric field that I mentioned can be found at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field . On Earth, a Fair Weather Current of an alleged 2 microamps of up-going negative current (electrons rising) corresponds to a downward-pointing electric field. If you dispute such a field for the sun, we could get into the manifestations of electrostatic repulsion between the sun and our atmosphere. Conclusions to be drawn from this thread provide for virtual production of excess electrons within a star. You would have all that you do not or cannot understand committed to speculations. The particles of positive charge at the core would be neutralized in contribution to the total charge of the host, by the additional electrons that would join the outer shell of electrons without altering the total charge upon the hosting body.

Please look at post 4 where you might find Moontanman's notion that my first sentence must tell it all. I was demonstrating to him that if everything is in the first sentence, then it would be all in one sentence and hence incomprehensible. I was addressing Moontanman not you. Your critique was embellished with the denigrating judgement of affectation. What is it that makes you think that I don't seem to be what I am trying to seem to be? I ain't no phony! You seem to be one of those sosh majors. What are you doing in a technical forum?

Yes. (An example of an array of electrical particles that would have taken on a stable formation.) From the notion that Earth and her atmosphere possess a downward-pointing electrical field: 1. The electric field pushes electrons upward and pushes positive charges downwards. 2. Hence, by now, there must be a lot of electrons at the top of the atmosphere. 3. Hence, by now there must be a lot of positive ions at the center of the earth. 4. Would this situation not represent a global macroscopic formation of charged particles?

Expert guidance to writers sometimes advise that any sentence more than fifty words long is incomprehensible. If my first sentence is intended to introduce a contention that I hope to demonstrate, and if I am to be obliged to establish from what technical premises I will substantiate my conclusions before I describe my conclusions, and if I must ensure that my premises are made indisputable prior to developing my conclusions, all in my first sentence, then the readability of that sentence will go to zero. I seek only to invite attention of the rare scientist who accepts that a case can be made for the negative charges to Earth and Sun. Sacred tradition actually has it the other way, at least for the earth. I side with Michael Faraday, not with the civil servants being left in command of absolute truth. Due to the dynamics of electrical storms, the earth sheds electrons into its fair weather atmosphere at an alleged rate of two microamps of negative current per square kilometer of surface. This demonstrates to the technically sharp that Earth is charged negatively thereby repelling such electrons outward. It is no fault of mine that such electron flow naturally develops a minus-to-positive voltage drop of some 100 Volts per meter of elevation along the vertical path of the lower atmosphere. Casual observers mistake such measurements as evidence of a positive charge for the atmosphere. The percentage of observers that or so casual is an overwhelming obstacle to the truth we expect from the scientific community. I deem the sun to be of negative charge because of its effect upon our atmosphere: The ionosphere is depressed at noon and extended higher on the night sky. Since it is like charges that repel, then the evidence points to a like electrical polarity between Earth and Sun. It is assumed that everybody knows something. When they do not know, they could just ask for the information/proof/support/evidence whatever without scolding the writer who can only do his or her poor best.

Will get back to you after finding out what you mean by a plasma universe thread. I pursued what passes for coin-of-the-realm understanding of Earth's electric field, and suggested a mere contemplation that I have found to bear rewarding revelations. The insight expected from intelligent contemplation that I suggest overcomes disadvantages due to a counter-intuitive feature of electricity. I chose your Cosmology forum site in order to extend into a realm affording a practical measure of electrical isolation and have no need to intrude into the great category of the entire universe if you are disinclined to tolerate it. Edit: Having researched "plasma fusion", I hope to reassure you that I subscribe to no scriptures from any stigmatized society. I deal with nothing but my own reverse engineering experiences that have rewarded me with top-notch comprhension of complex electronic systems.

Just as a hydrogen atom is made up of a positive and a negative particle, arrays of electrical particles can take on stable formations. A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. As such, both bodies would posses downward-pointing electric fields that lead to existence of a congestion of positive particles at their central cores. Meditation over how negatively charged outer shells of these bodies would hold lesser charges of positive polarity within themselves brings needed insight toward the electrical influence upon galactic infrastructure.

Thanks for the PM clue. A wordless plunge into the pits leaves the faulted contributor with no idea what complaint is being lodged against him. It is not articulate enough to serve as a critique. A one-man judge, jury and executioner conveys an impression of dissatisfaction as he crushes the back of a skull, but to hear of such attack being proper substitute for confrontation with charges smacks of injustice. Meaningless generalities don't help. Freedom demands the telling of why. Not to tell why is inhuman. Usually, well water has to be hauled up or pumped up or else it just stays down in there. Thanks for the empathy. Since that posting, I have noticed that the forum combines "Junk Science", really, and "Speculations"; not inadvertently, with from an intentional discouragement toward free-wheeling speculation. I had thought that they had goofed on the cruelty of that combination. Then, I had thought myself to be just expressing the feel we would all experience when hopes have been dashed down that trap door. I thought I was jesting about all of our lot. My hope remains that intelligent thinkers might look past the mockery to judge for themselves upon the validity I see in the issues I raised in the technical posting.

OK. I give up unless we can get down to specifics. There is no way I can think that physics is wrong. I think that my understanding of certain manifestations of physics could set you free from some misinterpretations of the laws of physics that hamper your comprehensions. You have been consistently standing in my way, and you have all of the chips. You seem more concerned over the tone I have used rather than specific technical details. My own misguidance in attempting to draw out some astrophysicist into debate has merely agitated you whom I hoped might simply referee. Your misunderstanding of the electrical performance of closed conductors is the key thing with which I could help you if you would permit. You have confessed to have no indulgence for theories coming from people you deem to be beneath you. I shouldn't seem to complain because I have less reason than you to be humble. You have at certain instances acknowledged that in a Faraday cage there would be transient fields while charged particles were undergoing repositioning, but slough such exceptions to your mantra of absolute isolation because of the time limitations of transients. It is only during such transients (which can last for years) that the effects I assert take place. Once all charged particles have reached their goals, there are no more fields within the closed conductor. You fail to acknowledge that incidental to correcting your garbled explanation of dynamic fusion, I discovered what brings on sunspots. You didn't thank me for correcting the erroneous direction of rotation that you entertained for the earth. How can you be in contempt for what I can offer?

But the "Name on the Door" is given as "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads". Junk scientists, crackpots and jackasses enter here. Public welcome to come in and laugh at the funny monkeys. Not a welcome mat for guys who believe themselves to have tinker-toyed a theory straight up from solid brass tacks. Free dunce caps dispensed inside. Check scalp with infallible moderator of your choice. Alternate entry via trap door provided in place of expressed rebuttal logic dissing contributors above. Complimentary gags optional for non-celebrities. Trash Can waiting next floor down. Step carefully. Couldn't find a "PM" button, but "Polar Jets" awaits your scrutiny. Just one for negative jets. Positive jets from young stars available for the asking.

I began: “Whereby hot fusion in stars does not lead to explosive regeneration, it would seem that it must not be self-sustaining and therefore must depend upon a companion source of heat. Can anybody help me to get that notion out of my head?” There was no hypocrosy in the statement above. I was newly indulgent of what I wish I had called dynamic nuclear fusion as opposed to what I wish I had called static fusion. The case I see is for static pressure bearing down upon a ball of protons positioned electrostatically at the center of a star, and accounting for the negative bias I suppose to dominate all shining stars. I was oblivious at the time of how self-sufficient dynamic fusion (plasma stuff) avoided explosive regeneration, and I am grateful to you for pointing me into the right general direction. I had to articulate the principles a little differently from what council I received in order achieve my own comprehension of how that fusion process performed under such excellent regularity. Negative feedback never showed up in my viewfinder, but positive feedback showed to be circumvented by the commitment of excess energy into the potential domain instead of heat. Such comprehension could not have matured without consideration of how the sustained regeneration of fusion due to inevitable stellar vortexes would always be self-terminating. Incidentally, no deference seems required toward existing consensus for the supspot activity alluded to above. Vortexes are well known and need no supspots to explain their existance. On the other hand, popular expanations of sunspots invoke magnetic blocks which await future discoveries as to their cause and workings. I profess to hold logical explanation for the magnetism experienced with sunspots and the solar flares that accompany them. The consensus that it remains to be discovered how a sunspot can cause a vortex, probably doesn't rise to level of established doctrine prohibiting contrary assumptions. You presented but a portion of my appeal to Klaynos, made prior to my discovering the cause of sunspots. He had posted: “Gravity, and the associated pressure are the torch to which I think you are referring. Our understanding of the suns fusion process is very good.” I am still wondering what percentage of solar power comes from dynamic fusion, and in all sincerity did I express a welcome for the understandings I mistakenly supposed were being offered. Hence I expressed my welcome for help from Klaynos as follows: “Then you must be someone who could help me in my confusion. Does the sun utilize any cold fusion? My understanding of the sun's fusion process is not very good so I am asking for some of yours.” He never supplied any, but make it clear that celebrity status is crucial to what postings he would heed. All of my cosmic discoveries occurred after age of 73, precluding much chance of ever becoming a somebody. Since that posting, I blundered into a lot of common sense reasoning by learning from other people's mistakes as presented on this forum. That is what can come from a good bull session. As embarassing as it was to have been so bewildered under public exposure, it seems a world class piece of work has resulted. We might suppose that our work might inspire some utilitarian advantages toward predictions of solar storms taken from solar surface motions, or otherwise contribute to research. Even a casual reading by thinking persons might lead into developments more urgent than the criterion of popularity you imply. I have never felt more productive.

I have now responded to the technical issue in that thread, but my contention that I do know what you were talking about and what I am talking about as well, is germane to this thread if I am to be allowed to defend myself in order to defend the validity of what I can contribute. Your confession that I, as an outsider, am to be deplored for my preposterous hope of contributing any constructive contribution to scientific conversation, suggests that we are up to high speed toward the target of status quo. All moderators contended that increased temperature of fusing plasm reduces its rate of fusion! The ensuing perfect gas law merry-go-round evolved without the protocol of any context at all: that was the problem that none of us realized at the time. The profession of those moderators does not invalidate anything and everything I have to say, nor does your harsh opinion accompany any substantiation. The most casual observer is likely to be privy to the efforts involved by scientists endeavoring to raise the temperature of plasma in hopes of achieving nuclear fusion. Science allows dealing with the issues. Einstein dealt in cause and effect rather than to say his assertions are true just because he was Albert Einstein. The raising of the temperature of a gas represents increasing particle velocity. Increased particle velocity presents increase probability for collisions between protons for consequential increased likelihood of more fusion. Nature's adiabatic way of raising temperature of fusing plasma demonstrates itself to be by compressing it further, thus also adding additional enhancement for increased rates of fusion. It should be difficult for any of the moderators to assert an expansion of gas due to its heating under the effects of compression.

My reply to your response above received the mute critique of relocation. It is assumed here that you take exception to something that I had posted. Did the paragraph reading ("I do know that the pail is macroscopically neutral because that was my premise. We are dealing with a pail with no excess electrical particles of either polarity. The microscopic negative charge upon the exterior surface: electrons positioned like goosebumps; represents electrons displaced from the interior surface of the pail causing that surface to bear a microscopically positive charge. As soon as any electron(s) can make the trip, the pail does begin to take on a macroscopic charge. It is toward some part of that positive microscopic charge toward which an electron released from the interior would travel." ) offend you or cross some forbidden boundary?

[ There seems to be a way to get off the adiabatic merry-go-round here. We could narrow things down to realistic scenarios seemingly native to the venue of fusing plasma. If we approach phenomena involved at a stratum of solar plasma involved with fusion, the depth establishes a given pressure for a shell of equal temperature that satisfies equilibrium between energy production and energy withdrawn for a constant luminosity. When and where any overproduction of energy begins to occur, earliest infinitesimal rise of temperature to result invests that energy into potential energy by raising solar mass above it as the overheated gas expands. As a result, energy manifested by the temperature rise is shifted out of the thermal category before it necessarily induces advanced rate of fusion. (It might seem reasonable that momentary increase in particle velocity could usually effect expansion sooner than it would result in an additional proton collision.) A tad more temperature reduction would present itself due to adiabatic effect prompted by the gas expansion. When a bit of energy underproduction presents itself as an infinitesimal chill, reduced particle velocity would relax enough upward pressure for descent of solar mass whereby the chill would be nullified by two influences: an adiabatic temperature boost would result from the compression and potential energy would have been converted into heat energy. Note that such a recovery from chill would not represent the rarefaction of proton density one might hear tell about in this thread. There is no question about hotter stuff taking up more space: the action is a crunching down on the stuff with elevated temperature as the result. One exception to the constancy of pressure for a given stellar depth would be at the center of great swirling masses. The vortexes to be found there can plausibly run deep enough to penetrate fusing plasma. Centrifugal force can be expected to diminish the rate of fusion in an avalanching fashion due to inherent positive feedback released at the vortex. Reduced pressure reduces rate of fusion to bring temperature reduction that further snuffs atomic fusion. A sunspot would present itself on the surface above. At a distant radius from the vortex would be a ring of deepened solar matter that results in a ring of increased pressure at our selected shell of normally fixed temperature. Fusion at that site would increase, consequential expansion would be relieved into the direction of the shrinking central column of the sunspot: no longer would excess energy production be absorbed by the lifting of solar mass. Runaway rates of fusion would hurl unspent plasma along a sleeve of raging fusion encircling the vortex. Solar flares bursting from the surface invite solar surface electrical charge to great heights producing magnetic effects and low frequency radiation. Dollops of such rising plasma that fall back to the solar surface carry such charged particles down to provide reverse magnetic effects to that of the rising flares.

I salute your contribution. A loner has to bust his butt to prepare his message for peer review and can then be refused critique or any satisfaction. I know of a case where a contrary theory had just previously been acclaimed by the peer-review journal: They already had a dog in the race and that was just crapola! Mere limitation of resources can explain a lot of omissions. A single error presumed or contained can make most anything wrong or look wrong, but if that always puts the whole bundle asunder as pseudoscience, then we would all be in the monkey-house. Should peer reviews precede offerings to a scientific forum? Let me get this straight. You are demonstrating the validity of your point by explaining that many people do more work than fewer people, and that it is hard to find geniuses hiding out in their attics. It does not take a genius to know that if you hide out in your attic you will be hard to find: That must be the whole idea of hiding anywhere! But why should you suppose that that is what they do? Who is ever going to even look for geniuses hiding in attics?

When you awake you will be someone else with no memories except all of his. Tomorrow you may wake up as that partner you are double-crossing today or a even Yappish-speaking mongrel's second-best cat. When you awake you will be someone else with no memories except all of his. Tomorrow you may wake up as that partner you are double-crossing today or a even Yappish-speaking mongrel's second-best cat. Deja vu

About 50 years ago, during drought conditions here in New England, I happened to catch sight of a dense column of ants maybe two feet wide and some 35 feet long was marching East across my side yard. Leading the column was a near perfect circle about a meter across, defined by slightly different ants that traveled as though contained by a moving circular boundary. As each ant reached that boundary at some certain angle, it snapped into an equal angle away from the circle. They might always have all been always been turning to their right. They raced around and around with those segments of travel, swinging around in their headings even into reverse direction. In disbelief I tracked them across the street where a water ban violator had lush grass through which the left me staring at their departure. Can anybody advise me of what was going on?

I stashed "Polar Jets" into the rubber room (Pseudoscience and Speculations). That is where my clarification to a moderator was thrown for reasons unknown to me to this very day. (Hope you will afford me more self defense than that.) What are you talking about? I am not privy to any confrontation disclosing how a seemingly confrontational revelation of any specified folly or foible on my part has been presented to me. I recently sought to benefit you with my best shot at clarifying lessons taken from Faraday's work with his ice pail. I was trying to help you. In all humility, am an expert in electronics. I have no idea what you have taken exception to. Whom have I offended? How? Please forgive my ambiguity. Not one great big society, just some little bands of them. I caught myself surrounded by moderators one day upholding a contention I had challenged. They all contended that increased temperature retards fusing rate of plasma. It freaked my mind, how could any one of them possibly imagine such a thing? I broke and ran away from here for a good six months. You might catch me faulting a garbled interpretation of a well-established theory. Science is thinking too, not just knowing a big bunch of facts. (That's not germane but I wanted to throw it in somewhere.) Am not choosing up sides (here) about global warming, but I hear tell a lot of fraud has mixed up the issue. Politics has brought hijacking into the scientific consensus business. You have made many points that are well taken.

The Fair Weather Current (FWC) of meteorological concern demonstrates Earth’s negative charge, and is taken here to suggest that the so-called ionosphere might be a bubble-like strata of electrons. It seems common sense that such electrons would hover above the atmosphere due to mutual repulsion from each other and from a negatively charged Earth. As we know, the ionspheric bubble remains deflected away from our sun, indicating that the sun itself must be charged toward the same polarity. Our expectations for prevailing composition of the solar wind should be of electrons. Solar flares, as eruptions of plasma would throw in a mix of protons on occasion. For the sun to remain of negative charge despite continuous discharge of electrons, something would have to be either creating electrons or consuming protons, or at least those little positrons. Now that I believe in fusion of plasma, which presumably annihilates electrons and positrons with faithful parity, I must nevertheless expect an alternative form of fusion in the solar core to account for sustained negative charge. As an electronics technician with 60 years experience, it is no big deal to boast assurance that it is one and the same thing for negative charge to migrate upward and for positive charge to migrate downward. Hence, a ball of nuclear material devoid of electrons must dwell at the center of any star. That center is the ideal location for electrostatically positioning nuclear fuel where maximum gravitational pressure is to be found, and with an extra little electrostatic squeeze. My guess is that static fusion at the core is what eventually lights off a new star. This sets the stage for galactic structure, including the polar jets we mean to address. We are prepared to see spheres of a given polarity with cores of the opposite polarity. Then we can grasp that disks of a given polarity would attract particles of the opposite polarity toward their centers and hoops or sleeves of a given polarity would attract particles of the opposite polarity through their centers. Counterintuitivity demands that we dwell upon this natural rule: That small charged particle enshrouded by such shapes of opposite polarity must shun the closest portion of its enclosure. The square law reduction of the more distant attracting particles is offset by the square law increase in the number of such particles. That makes effect of range a wash, and the greater profile toward the far side tips the scales to make the grass that much greener on the other side. The particle finds the double cross at the center where growing retrograde pull matches falling forward pull. In a sphere, it has fallen and cannot get up. Going toward a hoop or disk, that opposite charge huddles around the rim and the centering process becomes attainment and maintenance of equidistance for the particle to all points around the rim as it approaches and as it proceeds beyond the other side if there is a hole. Our electron guns that work that way might have been discovered by accident. I looked but never saw who had a clue. Dead givaway: that sleeve through which electrons shoot is called the focusing anode (that’s a positive electrode). Now we are ready to describe the polar jet Milkyway would have if it had one. We sorta just did. The focusing anode is made of protons that converged from a disk some hundred thousand light years across over a long period of time. (I think Milkyway’s disk has gotten too fat to qualify as a disk and now it is more like a growing ball of protons spinning more slowly than the stars that it gobbles revolve around our Super Massive Black Hole (SMBH)). I guess those stars make up the bar across our galactic bulge. Am surer of that than I have any right to be: sorry. When and if our galaxy had a polar jet, her bulge would have been an accretion disk centered by the SMBH. Electrons thrust down from within that positive domain would not head for the black hole but onto the rotational axis of the disk. (The black hole but nibbles upon the few required to keep attraction of its growing mass balanced against equivalent repulsion from all the electrons it has gobbled.) We have electrons aligned for the trip they take as influx of electrons proceeds. The electrons repell each other outward while the mean positive ring hold each one centered, guiding each for equidistance around the ring. I hear tell of electron beams thousands of light years long. NOTE: That is a lot of electrons missing from somewhere else. So how come grown physicists write books telling how we have to have the same number of each polarity? How many moderators of this forum believe that it is preposterous for an outsider to suppose that he may have happened upon some scientific insight?

Then I concede your point. If I just play the odds, I can just jump to the conclusion that, whatever the issue, I have it wrong. Now I fear the gross humiliation of getting kicked out of the Pseudoscience department. I do stand ready to supply my rationale if a specific challenge were provided to me in a way I could understand. Am trying to catch on why slighting a notion within general consensus warrants the stigma of junk science. Status quo cannot trump progress. "Defer judgement" is council I always hope to follow. I have nothing but gratitude for even a willingness of someone to attack my theory. Dealing with the issues, I can defend myself. Will invite your attention by PM after I install my contention on the Speculations forum where less sniper fire might be expected. Happily, a dunce cap could easily be a "one size fits all" for a pretty broad range of skull sizes.

"Pseudoscience" is a swear. Einstein wouldn't have looked for gravitational bending unless he had thought of it beforehand. Nobody likes to take a bum rap. "Fantastic ideas" is a swear. There are screwballs everywhere. If you just want to play the odds, its a very safe bet that the next guy you meet will be a real jackass. But stay the rope. Honestly, I was not complaining, but just looking for safer venue than to challenge any mutual admiration society. The only dumbing down I would justify would be to stay inside the lines drawn by consensus if possible. But trying to do that is not so easy. Learning that nobody knows how lightning is formed (although I imagine that I do) would mean that there need be no defender of a consensus to fight me off. Wrong again - the consensus is that nobody knows and there are defenders to be encountered if I go there. My theory for polar jets has practical demonstration within millions of TV sets. It also explains why lightning so often enters open windows. If I told you about it, there would be that "false-scientist" sign hung around my neck. So be it. My only point is to seek out truths unprotected by the masters of all they survey. Am just looking for safe refuge. By the way though, is it not foolhardy to challenge man-made global warming? "The debate is over." for crap sakes. Or cosmic acceleration? My cigarette butt. What flavor is your anti-neutrino? Is that really stuff properly based on observations and experiments that can be repeated? Whatever, that that is is that that is so I will not complain. Shouldn't a forum exist somewhere that fits its definition: a place where anybody can kick an idea around? A little less "king of the hill" would be nice. Control freaks are taking over my favorite nation. The soap box is passing like an old buggy whip.

I don't think that pointing out what appears to be a most ironic fallacy amounts to characterizing anyone of incompetence. At the moment that I comprehended just how an avalanching regeneration is prevented where fusing plasma occurs, the sole event that I could imagine to prevent such protection was the penetration of a vortex through fusing strata. Logical consideration of the description and impact of an exceptional pressure gradient upon such strata presented a description close the Rob Roy Britt's sunspots description from the previous decade. As far as I could see, a supposition for a magnetic block to stellar convection is unsupported and could be totally ignored. It seems but a placeholder for the localized bipolar regeneration phenomenon that would account for sunspots. I sought to consult him without receiving a reply. The issue I would pursue is with his expressed hope of discovering how the sunspot brings on any vortex, and I cannot imagine a sunspot that was not originated by an existing vortex in the first place. Prior to any opportunity to justify a theory it seems natural to evolve the theory in the first place. Hence, my logical convictions that I believe bear no speculation brought me to an account of why solar flares would emerge from sheathing of sunspots and how any surplus of electrons at stellar surfaces would rise upon such flares attuned to exceedingly low frequencies and some of them would be subject to be carried back down by gravity upon dollops of plasma. The magnetic polarity produced by falling plasma charged to the same polarity as the rising plasma would account for the opposing magnetic polarities observed on the solar surface. Again, magnetic phenomena observed might represent another reversal of cause and effect. If your immediate informant is not among the "they" you refer to who are making progress, then I would be proud to discover who they are in order to offer my expertise. Explanation of the solar flares seems here to require the same concepts that appear to support my theory of lightning formation. Surely, all due progress is in good hands, but is it absurd for an outsider to believe that he has found some useful insight?

Scientists acknowledge some of the gaps in our understanding of the world or cosmos. For example, the relative rarity of lightning out on the high seas: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf019/sf019p10.htm Who would like to kick that one around? Many texts admit uncertainty about how lightning really comes about. How about that one? Even when the consensus is but a shrug and a funny face, whatever we come up with will be called pseudoscience because the approved solution is to have no idea. Hopefully, those of us who are retired are relatively free to ignore the pressure and bounds of organized agendas. Who in the world can force us to play dumb? Trying to think beats crosswords and Sudokus all day long. A comical gap is acknowledged for sun spots. They wonder how sunspots and solar flares create vortexes on stellar surfaces. Golly, we get whirlpools on Earth without their help. But watch out when you see muddled cause and effect like that because the muddlers are big shots. We are safer staying within the out-and-out gaps. It would be great to find or make a list of gaps in science. Maybe we could get on a roll that way.

Would it help if I changed my description of the internal charge as that of a stationary charge? The concern is not that such a charge is eternally prevented from launching charged particles toward the outer shell, but only that for some limited time the charged particles remain, perhaps toward the center of the pail. I do not see why you are concerned about whether or not the charge resides in a conductor. I do know that the pail is macroscopically neutral because that was my premise. We are dealing with a pail with no excess electrical particles of either polarity. The microscopic negative charge upon the exterior surface: electrons positioned like goosebumps; represents electrons displaced from the interior surface of the pail causing that surface to bear a microscopically positive charge. As soon as any electron(s) can make the trip, the pail does begin to take on a macroscopic charge. It is toward some part of that positive microscopic charge toward which an electron released from the interior would travel. The overall result of these relationships between electrical particles is that in any isolated body of any conductivity at all, the electrical particles that outnumber those of opposite polarity present themselves at least by proxy to the outermost surfaces of the body. Such action is continuously operable. In insurgent electron will repel an inner surface electron outwardly to present an attraction for that electron upon that inner surface. Edit: I have removed the presumptive incidental paragraph that is the sole material that I suspect caused my arguments to be ejected from classic physics. All that remains is consistent with findings of Michael Faraday. It would seem fair play for me to be appraised of what technical disagreement Swansont takes against my remaining rationale above.

Experiments by Michael Faraday upon his ice pail should suggest that whereby for any negative charge retained within an ice pail, an equivalent number of electrons are presented onto the external surface. Let us assume such a pail to be encountered to contain equal counts of protons and electrons (hence electrically perturbed only by virtue of it surrounding an immobile negative electrical charge within). The immobile negative charge would reposition some electrons originally contained by metallic molecules microscopically of neutral electrical charge. For every such repositioning of an electron away from the inner surface, an electron will have been added to molecules upon the outer surface. The pail would continue to be macroscopically of neutral electric charge: Every additional electron appearing upon the outer surface would be balanced by an equivalent microscopically positive charge upon the inner surface. (That positive microscopic charge can likewise be accounted for consequential macroscopic neutrality for internal electrical status embracing the internal premises of the pail as the inner surface and the inner contents.) From the perspective of the immobile negative electric charge within the pail's contents, we can honor the contention that external electrical influence denied to the interior applies to the outer coat of electrons as well as charges further removed. The positive charge upon the inner surface is thus not distracted from its natural attraction for the negative charge within. Hence, an electron released from the inner contents would travel outward in a manner resembling electron travel detected with our Fair Weather Current of meteorological significance. Furthermore, if two ice pails, both of negative charge were approaching each other, their outer microscopic charges would repel each other, slewing electron population densities away from facing hemispheres. It should follow that the inner surface microscopic charges of positive polarity would assume comparable displacement. As a result, any released electron in either pail could be influenced by the coming collision. Nevertheless, none of this should traumatize persons entering one of those safety cages within high voltage electrodes. We could look the other way when their councilors advise of absolutely no internal effects when man-made lightning goes boom. It is just a little white lie.