dalemiller

The architect might not have ruled against levels, plumb bobs and poured concrete.

A horse can win a race by the nose. Is my immediate advisor part of a tag team? A line tangential to a curve meets it at one point. Since 1492, the world has been round. A plus or minus is hardly challanged for however large or small the value to which it applies. How mute must a humble superscientist be to escape stigma of pedanticism?

If the sun were to possess a positive core devoid of electrons, stellar fusion within the core might convert a positron to energy without annihilating any electron as part of the deal. Such action could be considered a virtual generation of an electron for the universe. Such events could explain the neutrino shortage that disturbs some scientists. Such a trend would give rise to an electron into any outer shell of electrons that might surround the sun, bringing consequential shifting of most electrons in such a shell as electrons strive for equidistance throughout such a stratum. We might expect such a shell full of wiggling electrons to heat up. Such an effect would toast the thin stream of gass passing through, hence raising coronal temperature.

Rate of fall is not the factor suggested in consideration of the curvature of the earth. The issue is the gain of altitude for the bullet as the earth's surface drops away from the bullet's trajectory.

Meteorologists have been quite right in associating graupel (sort of a flying slush) with lightning. Those two manifestations of atmospheric electricity share microphysical phenomena that contribute to conversion of heat to electrical energy. Heat is absorbed in the conversion of liquid water into water vapor. With the evaporation process, the absorbed energy becomes invested into increased molecular velocity whereby gaseous state is achieved by bringing water molecules into mutual escape velocity. Such vapor eventually absorbs atmospheric ionization, which lowers its dew point temperature. Electrical repulsion reduces intermolecular attraction to thus require additional temperature reduction for vapor condensation and for freezing of such rain. However, charged raindrops must freeze from the inside out because only their interiors possess electrical neutrality; a provision that happens to raise ion density at their outer surfaces and advance electrical potential further toward thunderbolt production. As a matter of fact, crystallization would be impossible if intermolecular repulsion were to exceed corresponding attraction. Up until the flash of lightning, falling ice crystals should be getting pretty wet, but their supercooled water jackets should harden up once the thunder is sounding off. Such precipitation gets a lot of attention from meteorologists; they call it graupel, and some may get paid to study it.

The number of oscillations involved with the sound should be unchanged. An approaching sound source delivers them all in less time than an equivalent stationary source, hence total oscillations delivered in less time yields higher frequency to stationary observer. A departing sound source should increase delivery time by the same value. Since fixed time delay has less lowering effect upon the lower frequency f2 and more pitch raising effect upon the higher frequency f1, then condition D should result. Fixed time variation takes a smaller bite out of longer wave length.

Actually, the dropped object should strike first because it has less distance to fall due to the curature of the earth.

Responding to CaptainPanic Amending interior contents as, carrying no charged particles. Also, must amend Interior to be contents between center and outer skin, but emphatically not including the center. Appreciate your science on water ions. Am convinced that entire charge that I have been calling “majority charge” is on outside, but where ionization has added in a separated particle of either polarity, neither of those particles constitutes charge. The one matching charge polarity would join the charge particles and the other should go to the center where it disrupts no radial symmetry, but is key to process I claim capable of producing stable exothermic migration of charged particles. Majority polarity particles should “feel” more repulsion from greater host of like particles and thus retreat as though from the center. Particles of the minority polarity should seek greater host of opposite charge to travel as though attracted by center until such a trophy brings rear attraction to equal its erstwhile objective. In that all such traction is due to electrostatic force, opposite motion is intuitively due for opposite polarity! The bucket of precharged water was meant only to shoehorn in half of an indulgence for global traction accomplishing an electrostatic sorting process. It is sufficient by itself toward understanding lightning, and is but a contemplation away from cosmic sorting of the two polarities. However, something like a cosmic ray might fit the bill as a testing stimulus. It had seemed at first that Faraday cage lore would give a running start to further insight, but it has backfired horribly. Contradictions abound due to various notions: Some folks expect a goldplated box, an impervious shield, a hollowed out electrode, something not too big or too small, or in the worst case, a chamber hyperliterally pure of all ionic contamination. That last, a rule that it admits to no electric field within reverses cause and effect such that it disqualifies such a chamber as such a chamber when invaded by a free electron! There is a joker in the deck somewhere, and by God I think I have it. As lateral support to the principal I seek to disclose, is the child’s play it makes out of more comprehension of lightning formation and distribution, polar jets, high temperature solar coronas, “cosmic acceleration”, stellar core fusion, black hole formation, accretion descent from orbital positions, the Hoag object, galactic central bulges, neutrino deficits, snowflake formation, and dark matter. That is all stuff gained by a layman who urgently wishes to share it with the pros. Today’s scientists are so busy nowadays being tangled up with string theories and a dozen dimensions give or take a little that it is hard for us ordinaries to find access in recent decades such as what Richard Feynman or Isaac Asimov permitted.

Then the fields do not matter. Since electrons introduced into an isolated bucket as part of charged raindrops become added to the charge of said bucket, and all of the charge becomes presented to the outer surface according to widely accepted scientific lore, then an exothermic migration must then have prevailed. Of course there is no free lunch. The endothermic event supporting such traction is the disruption of an electron from its electrical bond to a positive neucleus.

All of my information is first-hand. The word “field”, as a second-hand term, does not serve my brass tacks little mind. It is as though a cause-and-effect muse must deal with esoteric doctrine. The charges on the exterior are held there by mutual repulsion between like-charged particles all lying on what we call the exterior of the hosting body. The shortest path for such influence would seem to be, for almost any charged particle involved, right straight through the interior field and any other entity within, in order to exert appropriate push upon any other particles of the same electrical persuasion. It is difficult to begin an attempt to understand how a sole electon within a negatively charged Faraday cage could roam at random within such a chamber.

In saying that the net charge of a body is negative, I mean to be saying that there are more electrons than protons contained by that body. That would be the whole system as you spoke of it. The surface of the body would have an electron to match every local proton where they engage within neutral atomic structure, an aditional electron for every ionic proton located within the core or “heading” that way, plus the electrons making up the charge which are the only electrons without proton counterparts somewhere in that body. Not to say that we can tell the difference between them on sight.. Hence the isolated array of protons caught in the center are complimented by an equal count of isolated electrons arrayed in the outer shell augmenting the count of electrons there making up the overall charge on the hosting body. The best way to check the charge on a Faraday cage from an inside view is to see what polarity of charged particles is trying to get out of there. That would be the majority charge. Too many electrons sends other electrons climbing the walls. A particle of the opposite charge however, would head in for the middle or propagate its charge in that direction. If we switch to two dimensions by considering a ring or a disk, we can say that a positive charge inside responds to a greater arc of attraction by heading for that and leaving a lesser pull behind it until it gets to the center. That is how electron guns in old TV sets work if we may switch example to that of a negative minority charge: The focusing anode is a ring or sleeve connected to positive voltage (dead giveaway – anode). Electrons called through that shape maintain equidistance from all points around the circle on the way through and far beyond. Speaking of this, ask about our solution to the polar jet mystery sometime. As to the “what positive core” question: propagation of positive charge to the center of ball or disk is natural for a negative majority charge. In the case of a spherical host, it would be tricky for any protons to escape without a proxy. (Thermal activity could promote just such an option.) As time goes on a substantial core would build up as long as the hosting body maintains its negative charge. Within a stellar hosting body however there would be another way out, but that is another story.

The entire earth is Faraday cage. It even has a positive core that easily escapes our notice. The electromagnetic shielding implied by existing nomenclature for a body with surrounding electrical discontinuity, “Faraday cage”, is mere semantic mischief. Shielding per se assures neither total blockage nor full effect across the spectrum. The ionosphere can reflect enough short wave radio wave energy to accommodate long-range communications but nevertheless passes lots of sunshine on into our world. Explaining lightning formation, it helps to identify raindrops as little Faraday cages simply to emphasize restriction of negative ions to their outer surfaces. The issues there and those concerning our planet are about concentric ionic arrays rather than any preoccupation with shielding effects.

The Fair Weather Current is a manifestation of electrons rising to the electrosphere/ionosphere. Such a phenomenon suggests that Earth functions as a Faraday cage bearing a negative charge. The rising electrons are taking their place amongst the majority charge particles. Meteorologists still wonder about what causes FWC but it is quite clear to an electronic technician.

A previous posting here, “Exothermic migration of charged particles” has had time to draw any discouraging words but stands so far with no sustained contradictions. A mind experiment ventured to show that charged particles can join a Faraday cage without starting at an outside surface and so demonstrate that a traction exists to reposition them so as to be found according to the words of Michael Faraday about his ice pail. (Excess electrons arrived at the interior before release to the common premises of the Faraday cage and were saddled with a forceful migration process in order to fit his stipulation.) Such outward travel of electrons is demonstrated by the meteorologists’ Fair Weather Current that is underestimated as some two picoamperes per square meter of Earth’s surface. Hence Earth bears a negative charge. Notice that the ionosphere is deflected by the sun. Hence, Sol bears a negative charge. Hence Sol too should have a core of protons with hardly an electron. Hence the story about positrons annihilating against electrons where helium is formed would be an old wives’ tail. Hence we should know why Sol would maintain her level of negative charge and show an overflow of electrons.

Yes. I failed you by not referencing my previous posting: “Exothermic migration of charged particles”. My first sentence above actually borrows credibility from the conclusion that stars and protostars would not be what they are without some negative charge. (That is part of the reason for “dark matter”). When M. Faraday taught us that an electric charge dwells upon the outer extremes of its hosting body, he left it to us to stipulate that charge to be just the majority charge. Hence, static electric conditions ammended by an ionization would introduce a concept of two opposite charges simultaneously existing independently in a single host by means of exothermic migration to isolated locations. My hounding folks with the exothermic feature is to circumvent confusion with charged capacitors which strive to reject electrical rearrangements forced upon them. Increased ion density at the surface of an electrical host is just the natural outcome when total ion population is restricted to smaller areas. You might be much less misinformed than others!

Some negative systemic charge should be expected to exist upon a protostar. No matter how slight that systemic charge might be, some migration of charged particles would result in an inward trend for positive ions and an outward trend for electrons. Increased systemic charge would increase the percentage of ionizations to be drawn by systemic traction and the rate of their acceleration. As the protostar compresses, increased surface ion density accompanies its increased temperature, leading to an acceleration of charged particle migration. Our brains seem wired to most readily appreciate the shell of electrons that would form around such a developing protostar, but perhaps benefit from some belaboring of the home to be found for naked protons. Their more counterintuitive destination becomes apparent uppon consideration of their attraction toward the greater number of electrons that would lie beyond the center of a spherical hosting body. The trick played upon protons is the condition they find halfway across the sphere: an equally attractive pull has grown from the rear just as the forward pull has diminished from its dominate influence. Traction upon protons is nullified when repulsion from their central habitat equals remaining attraction from diminished electron majority ahead and beyond! We might tend to protest about square law reduction with distance between particles, but must deem such factors to drop out because of square law increase for consequential particle count. (Increased range alone does not dim a large white wall.) This contemplation of a Faraday cage suggests an alternative concept for stellar fusion that seems to have been overlooked by celebrity science. Elucidation awaits in my little blog: http://dalescosmos.blogspot.com/

Right on! Thanks.

Then what keeps the electrons crowded out to extreme outer surface?

One broadly accepted concept in electronics is Michael Faraday’s notion that the entire charge placed onto a conductive body is to be found upon its outer surface. I agree with that notion and would like to suggest a mind-experiment for others who share that understanding. An electrically isolated bucket capturing negatively charged rainwater falling from the sky would store all excess electrons upon its outer conductive surface. They would have migrated there from within due to mutual repulsion. Hence, charged particles would have traveled from where they had been to where they were going. Therefore the entire physical host could be viewed as a body that presented traction for those particles to accomplish an exothermic excursion. As a result, rainwater within the bucket’s interior would have become electrically neutralized. Once all the particle motion is completed, electricity is more of a matter about matter than about energy. If, under these conditions, an ionization event were to separate an electron from a molecule of water, the cloven molecule would present an attraction between its erstwhile pieces: traction toward reunification. But if particle separation were sufficient to render traction of reunification subordinate to systemic traction of the host upon the electron, then the electron would move toward the outer surface of the bucket, leaving a particle of positive charge behind. Fundamental to basic principles of electricity, existing systemic traction of the host would move the positive particle into opposite direction from that of the electron, hence it would seek out the electrical center of the bucket of rainwater. Since excursions of either charged particle brought on by ionization would be exothermic, no pent-up forces such as those involved with a charged capacitor become involved to destine any reversal of the migrations described above. Ongoing repetitions of such phenomena represent transfer processes that change micro electric formations (atoms) to stable macro electric formations (including some that we see almost every day or night).

Then it seems we might agree that an isolated body can bear some electric charge, hopefully the majority charge could involve multiple electrons for instance? And such a charge would occupy the outer surface of the hosting body. (That body might weigh tons: enough to gravitationally restrain more than one ion from propelling away.) If this paragraph is OK so far, we are close to describing an exothermic rearrangement of atomic charged particles into a stable macro electronic standoff extending out beyond the range of individual atomic structure. Transformation from microstructure to macrostructure! That is the kernel of my last six years of preoccupation. Should you disagree, I will assume that my failure is clumsiness with the language rather than any folly in technical insight, but will pester you no further unless you encourage me to disclose my ultimate conclusions to date. If modern consensus about central galactic bulges ever seems dubious to you, then the smallest encouragement would call me back.

Thank you for persisting on a point I might still be overlooking. I know only that an extra electron can remain upon an atom without being ejected in order that a negative ion can exist and had no need to be overspecific on how this happens. It is enough to know that negative ions can exist on conductive surfaces and in the atmosphere for us to know that a large body such as Earth or Sol can retain some amount of electrical charge, thus qualifying as Faraday cages. That was the intended conclusion that my simplistic recognition of ions was meant to lead to and might remain more than a plausible reality. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged For an excess electron to rest upon a negatively charged body, a factor in the implied attraction is the mass of the host. The magnitude of repulsion for that electron is limited to the effects of the total number of electrons involved, which is relatively small. In fact, if one electron constituted the entire charge on the host, then it could hardly ever repel itself away. I have all the information I need by knowing that particles of the same polarity repel each other and those of opposite polarity attract each other. My six decades of experience simply help me to continue learning just from those two relationships. It seems that M. Faraday made a point that no charges would remain in the interior, although it nevertheless seems that he was not considering a minority polarity. He is much my senior, but he had much less experience in the field and fewer mentors. Excess deference to historical celebrities would get us nowhere in the advancement of science, hence the contemplation of an ionization within brought me to entertain the minority polarity coexisting with the majority polarity. Were there a particle of majority charge within a Faraday cage, and were it true that no external influence be in play, then that single particle could wander about under the sole influence of gravity. A second particle of like charge would bring about mutual repulsion: traction that lacking additional influence would send both particles to the outer limit of the host. Actually, were the host a perfect sphere, all particles in majority charge would be repelling each other into equidistant separation around the surface of the host due indeed to the present of repulsive fields between all charged particles so involved.

Doesn't the extra electron upon a negative ion overcome electrical repulsion by gravitational attraction? The electrons upon a negatively charged Faraday cage had to travel to the outer surface in order to get there. Faraday made a point that no charge (of the majority charge) remained within the cage. Mutual repulsion explains traction for the trip each unnullified electron had to make. Introduction (by ionization) of an additional electron, if not nullified by sufficient proximity of a previously escorting proton, would invite a similar trip away from center. Faraday's partially correct point was that no (majority) charge remains within.

I have been an electronics technician for nearly 60 years and an amateur astrophysicist for 6 years. It is my hope to divulge some discoveries only after discussing the rationale that pegs my theories to mainstream science even though conclusions might be surprising to scholars. My first focus is upon the Faraday cage, not for its utility against electrical interference, but for its influence upon ions developed within. Any isolated host might serve as a Faraday cage whereby any excess of one polarity of charged particles would be harbored upon its most outer surfaces due to mutual repulsion. Within limits, gravity alone would sufficiently hold some charged particles to prevent their expulsion from the host. It follows that within such a charged host in space, some ionizing incident could present separated positive and negative particles within which might be sufficiently separated that the particle belonging to the majority charge of the host might travel to the outer surface instead of recombining with its recent partner of the opposite polarity. As a result, a particle of minority charge would soon have centered itself within the host. Neither action would alter the total electrical charge upon the host. An important distinction for those separated particles: their extended separation after ionization would be due to an exothermic migration, differing from the charging of a capacitor that always entails an endothermic migration. Consequently, no forces would be in play to reverse the exchange of positions for the particles once their excursions were complete. For the case of hosts bearing negative charge, there would be a basis for accumulation of positive ions within its center. Does anyone have a case to refute this study so far or to classify it as Against Mainstream Science? If you grant this inch, you crack open the door to an eventual case describing Milky Way's central galactic bulge to be dismantling the galaxy from the inside out until it has carved a resemblance to the Hoag object.