Actions within a protostar

[dalemiller]

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/

[Moontanman]

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.

 

I don't see the mechansim for this, can you elaborate?

 

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 seems totally counter intuitive to me.

 

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/

 

I'll let others more informed than me critique your blog.

[dalemiller]

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!

Edited October 10, 2009 by dalemiller
To close a parenthesis.