dalemiller

Under the premise that the chamber is an isolated system, then for charge Q to appear on the outer surface, an equal but opposite charge will have been drawn to the inner surface. That effect seems like the direct impact to be expected from such an interior charge, and the outer charge the consequence. If the contained charge should be immobile, then the interior could be considered neutralized at a gross level as it contains two equal and opposite charges: one at the interior and one at the inner surface. However, if the interior charge is free to travel or propagate, it should be attracted to the opposite charge on the interior surface where neutralization would be accomplished at the molecular level. Since there are no perfect insulators, any immobility of charge would be a transient or temporary situation.

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?

Immobile positive charges not on the surface can remain inside a closed conductor, but the net interior charge balances out through neutralization by electrons that they draw to the interior surface. Such shift of electrons from the outer surfaceto the inner surface is the mechanism accounting for production of the positive outer potential and for the ultimate neutralization of all interior electrical charge. A similar process accounts for transient internal electrical neutralization for mobile particles of either polarity contained within a fluid internal medium, such as a raindrop, until ionized particles become restricted to the outer surface, Despite these natural provisions against wandering ions within a closed surface, the fact would remain that any two or more ions of matching polarity would repell each other to the outer surface.

My notions about this are little more than 48 hours old. When subsequent research brought me to up and down quarks I ran away. The analogy of raindrops haunts my picture of fusing protons. The concept needn't hang on proton shape. If the charge upon protons were in any fashion to dwell or travel about an outer envelope of a nucleus, or thread amongst its protons in some fashion that externalizes electric charge out from between the protons, then the mysterious strong force could get out of my life. Thank you very much for pointing me to sources you find credible. Perhaps disappointment with the state of meteorology and astrophysics has impaired my credulity. Will try as you advise, but work so slow that it might take several more lifetimes. I see your point: I do not know all that stuff inside out. Have been very busy doing a lot of other stuff. Next lifetime, will do better. Declaring myself as not even aspiring to become a quantum mechanic might explain why my head is swimming so here. Speculation can bring one's thinking to selecting examples seeming to be plausible exercises of the speculated principle. I happily withdraw unnecessary details of example simply to suggest that some validity may be hiding in the comparison of merging of charged raindrops with the fusion of protons. Thereby, my innocence of esoteric studies is a luxury I can enjoy. It seems that a lot of accounting is being asked for, but not to return to face it seems like shameful retreat. Lets face it, none of us are playing with a full deck and my ultimate goal is to improve on that situation. As for the uncertainty principal, always leave enough tolerance to allow for whatever uncertainties to which we must fall. However, I think you refer to decay of protons as occasions for some emergence of a neutrino, but then seem to imply that protons do not decay. My response should await clarification on proton degradability. I didn't even know that neutrons do decay. Honestly, I did not realize that Lepton number was not being conserved and am now frankly out way out over my head. If I have asserted that neutrons attract protons, I can only plead Gravity. I never explain the binding energy of a deuteron. What happened to me was to read about fusion of four protons into production of a helium atom. They fooled me by showing a positron and neutron to emerge in a merger that deleted one proton. Like a dummy, because I mainly keep my eye on the electricity ball, your would-be informant figured that old proton to be just a neutron with a positron in it, and didn't even worry about any other particles got involved. Just being in a speculations forum led me to let down my guard. Sorry about that.

Heard tell there are protons in there. Am here to speculate that a proton is a neutron with a positron halo. When a positron is alone it might be a little dot shaped like an electron. On this second day with this hypothesis, it seems easier to think that the proton's positive charge is its positron halo, and that larger nuclei are enclosed by halos of compounded positrons. Such halos are analogous to raindrop skins of like charge whereby any two separate particles repel each other until they are nevertheless brought into contact. Once they touch, a unified skin encloses placid uncharged material. More skosh, will seek to cite source asserting existence of positrons.

My thought is so preposterous that it calls for this re-emphasis: The little bitty positrons that sort of mirror electrons are taken here to emerge as the stuff of the outer coating of nuclear material; taken from the protons to leave them as neutrons with no push. By promoting all electrostatic charge to enveloping nuclear surface, no repulsive force would remain within. Loosely, the idea is that all electrostatic repulsion shifts to exterior surface as positrons somehow prompted by a "contacting" proton sneak out of the protons, gobble up the nucleus (think of a garden snake swallowing an elephant) to thus engage a new proton into nuclear membership. Likewise with the raindrops, there is no electrostatic push from interior molecules of water: All of the electric charge is in the skin of the raindrop. Typical increase of negative voltage develops not from importation of added electrons, but merely from crowding of ions closer together as total skin area falls off during raindrop enlargement.

How many of us cannot get our heads around the strong force? I think it is what is supposed to keep fused protons from parting. Well, about seven years ago a similar answer hit me before any realization of the related question: Charged rain drops repel each other more the closer they get until, bingo, once two of them touch they become as one. Sure, but they have become enclosed within a single membrane where the charge is distributed. The new skin has less area than the total of the previous two, but that is OK because the consequentially increased electron crowding represents a higher potential surrounding that given volume of water. It is just another step in the process of approaching lightning formation. Why, if that thought could be painless does it hurt to think of protons ganging together? It is no bother if one thinks of positrons as proton enclosures or nucleus enclosures instead of little dots! They could zip around by themselves as dots but still gobble nuclei, maybe as layers or just big smears. Deferring repulsion to such outer layers would leave enclosed protons equivalent to neutrons. Would matter that a proton might have swapped status with a neutron at any checkout time? Apology to understanderers of the strong force, but little people have to make do with less brains than what that takes, and some of us have to get through the day on pretty short rations.

Is that infinity F or infinity C? But wouldn't something's molecules wiggle at c before it could get quite so hot? By then it would be somewhere else far away.

Lately, the earth has been rotating from west to east.

Thanks for the link; I think Gauss is on my side when he states that the electric flux through any closed surface is proportional to the enclosed electric charge. Such flux would vanish as charged particles achieve their consequential redistribution. That suggests validity for my point that all charges within the enclosure wind up on its outside surface. It is beside the point that I do not see Gauss's law as denying that magnitude and direction of internal flux would also be proportional to charges on the conductor's surface. I will examine the link you gave me for any clues against this intuitive opinion on my part. Thanks again.

My reference to using different language was more of a figure of speech used upon my first discovery that my interpretation of Faraday's conclusion differed from yours. As for my terming certain migration of charged particles "exothermic migration", it seemed a useful combination of words within our shared language applied to emphasize a phenomenon that contrasts with the charging of a capacitor. I agree with Feynman that physics is best studied alone, and thus finding that two is a crowd might inadvertently bring an alien appreciation of vocabulary. It surprises me that you consider my offerings since your original supposition that I fancied electrons to cohere. I see some hope in suggesting that although you deem charged particles on the exterior surface of a Faraday cage to be screened or shielded from similar charged particles within such a chamber, you might nevertheless expect that if many charged particles of the polarity of a charge on the chamber were internally contained, that such particles alone would suffice to repel them to the inside outer surface and hence to the outside of the outer surface, thereby reducing interior population of such particles to less than several. Such action would be much less vigorous than the phenomena I suppose. You have in some past discussion acknowledged the exception such particles might take upon the rules applied to a tranquil Faraday cage. A background situation involving static electricity can remain as such even when dynamic disturbances intrude upon them. Only if you were to cite the very equation that disallows one of my assumptions, would I be able to learn where I conflict with Maxwell. Well-tested physics has to be responsible for an inordinate number of mysteries that confound the man's believers. I just never needed his stuff to do electronic troubleshooting. I do believe that our handle on physics cannot go unchallenged when the elite give up on how and why atmospheric lightning is formed. It is a no-brainer for me. Sorry. They haven't finished mangling the simple phenomena of astral polar jets. It took me 3 seconds to noodle it out. Sorry. I have not seen them explain minus forty degree liquid rain. Duck soup. Sorry. There are other such puzzles that wouldn't be so insoluble if we could really sit back and be so sure of status quo. Should we really be here just to recite past findings in science? It all seems so clear in the light of a process I perceive whereby charged particles take indefinite leave from participation as mere components parts of out familiar atoms.

I treasure your clarity in showing me your point of view about electricity. Until one of us ever changed his own or the other's belief, we could hardly ever be speaking in the same language.

Although I am ignorant of need to limit our scope to ideal conductors, that shouldn't interfere with our logic. If a single perturbation were to disrupt the steady state only for the short-lived duration of that perturbation, then a purist might conclude that electrostatic status has been momentarily suspended. However, were that perturbation to have been constituted merely by my insertion, somehow, of an offending excess internal electron, and if I were able to detect the direction taken by that electron during the disturbance, then when the transient became history, I would already have my information about the electrostatic state surrounding my chamber.

Hasn't Faraday's ice pail demonstration denied that any charged particles would remain within the interior? We cannot get on with anything else here if that is not clear to all parties.

In another thread, we seem to have adhered to approved solutions while focusing on a natural process producing seperation of charged particles being taken from atomic structure and brought into concentric arrays and staying that way. A planet with negative electrical bias would then plausibly develop a positive charge at its core that is balanced against an equivalent negative outer shell. Does such an interpretation occur to other laymen or scientists?

Let us have it your way. That is what my last sentence proposed in the post you just answered. What counts is that we can know that Earth and Sol do both carry a negative electrical bias. That bias does cause surplus electrons to rise to their surfaces because of repulsion. A planet or star that repulses electrons to its surface would attract a positive charge toward its center. Likewise, I invite you to please overlook my reference to so many other things such as raindrops and galaxies as Faraday cages and simply indulge such language as signifying bodies of some isolation that carry any charge upon their outer surfaces. I am convinced that I have blundered into some insight that has been overlooked but that does not deviate from mainstream science. My last seven years have been consumed in seeking to project my findings, and other things remain for me to put in order. You might suppose that a page of the best work of an electronic technician with 60 years' experience could interest certain thinking people, but might escape their attention if every posting is met with immediate denigration. Were you to reserve judgement instead of killing the ball as soon as it comes over the net, the intellectual climate here might be even more refreshing. If you let other people judge before reading your standard grim responses, one or more of them might come forward to craft the explanations to you more favorably.

My thread has not taken up any presumption of an ideal conductor. It deals with information we can interpret from Earth's Fair Weather Current. The fact that electrostatic force is involved does not restrict discussion from consideration of dynamic disturbances. A negative electric bias upon the earth would present excess electrons aloft that would continually be subject to being driven back down to the surface with rain. The atmosphere is not a perfect conductor but nothing but a perfect insulator would bar these contentions. No matter how short lived transient disturbances might be, the restoration of electrons into the atmosphere would have been accomplished as a result of termination of just such transients. Some one hundred or so of lightning bolts occur every second, and many more negatively charged are always falling somewhere. We need not refer to the negatively charged earth as a Faraday cage if semantics is all that results from such a reference.

Who assumes me to be in a steady state and why the assumption?

Upon ever beginning to host a negative bias, an isolated body would undergo an outward migration of its surplus of electrons. They would be travelling away from each other due to mutual repulsion. Until they had all reached the outer surface, the hosting body would not fit all of the special cases claimed for a Faraday cage: all of the charge would not yet be on the outside, there would be electric fields not balanced by equal and opposite vectors, each travelling electron would be departing from the greater number of electrons below it and toward the lesser number of electrons above it. Until each migrating electron completed its journey we might be wrong to call the hosting body a Faraday cage. Such a transient status endures for significant duration if the dimensions of the hosting body are very large, or if the dynamics of continual disturbances to electrically charged particles prevails.

Oh. I thought that angular momentum had to dissipate before stuff could come down into the event horizon. Barred galaxies make it look as though that is what often happens.

Why should we suppose that the singularity rotates very fast?

michel123456: Gravitation toward any third body should do the trick.

How far apart can nuclei otherwise be during collisions?

Astrophysicists don't play with a full deck. In all humility am suggesting instead you read my blog: http://dalescosmos.blogspot.com/

My omission of calculations was an escape from factoring in bullet's heading, mean velocity and latitude in order to determine net centrifugal force. ... Again about fallacious indoors/outdoors issues: Architect be darned, the mason's bubble level steers his bricks around the bend of Earth, plumb lines throughout the construction diverge. Top floors are bigger than bottom floors.